Mr. SPEAKER in the chair.



PRIVATE BUSINESS.

STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH.

MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely—

East Worcestershire Water Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time.

EBBW VALE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords].

Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

PORTSMOUTH WATER BILL [Lords].

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL [Lords].

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — "SPITFIRE" BOOK MATCHES.

Mr. Liddall: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that book-matches called "Spitfire," with a print of an aeroplane on a red, white and blue disc, are being sold in this country; from which country they are imported; and what is the contribution made by exporter or importer to a Spitfire fund?

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Andrew Duncan): Yes, Sir. These

matches were imported from Italy in the early part of 1940, and there is still a small stock left. On the last part of the Question I have no information.

Oral Answers to Questions — CLOTHES RATIONING.

Mr. Hannah: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered a petition from 107 women in Sedgley, asking to be allowed to obtain, coupon free, wool for service men; and can he do anything to meet their wishes?

Mrs. Adamson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the many petitions now being signed by the women of Britain asking for the right to purchase knitting wool in service shades, coupon free, for knitting comforts for relatives and friends in the Forces; and if he can make a statement on the question?

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will permit the issue without coupons of wool required for knitting service comforts?

Major Milner: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the feeling aroused by coupons being required for the purchase of knitting wool required for the services, with the implied suggestion that purchasers might use such wool for other purposes; and whether he is prepared to modify the order?

Sir A. Duncan: As I stated last week, khaki knitting wool can be bought without coupons until the 16th August. As it would be impossible to guard against abuse, and because the effect of abuse on any considerable scale would be serious, I regret that knitting wool in other Service colours cannot be made available free of coupon to private persons wishing to knit for their relatives or friends serving in the Forces. Arrangements are, however, being made to issue all knitting wools free of coupon to certain organisations to be approved for the purpose. These organisations will distribute the wool to knitting parties and receive the knitted goods for distribution amongst the services. A full announcement will be made as soon as details have been worked out with the Service Departments.

Mr. Thorne: Do I understand from that Reply that it will be impossible for a private individual to obtain wool for knitting purposes?

Sir A. Duncan: No, Sir; wool can be obtained for coupons.

Sir Granville Gibson: Is it desired that these organisations that are to be issued free wool should refrain from making application until the details are made public?

Sir A. Duncan: It will be much more convenient if they will allow some days to elapse until these arrangements are completed.

Mrs. Adamson: Will the President of the Board of Trade see that the list of organisations is a comprehensive one and that they understand that they must check up after the distribution of wool has been made?

Sir A. Duncan: Yes, Sir; as hon. Members will realise, these are matters in which the Service Departments are very closely interested. We want to see that the Services receive as wide a distribution as possible, and it will be possible for knitting parties to affiliate themselves to organisations, and these organisations will be responsible for seeing that the goods are properly distributed.

Sir A. Knox: Will it any longer be possible for small shops to deal in this wool?

Sir A. Duncan: Yes, Sir, and I hope that they will be part of the arrangement.

Sir A. Knox: Without coupons?

Sir A. Duncan: In so far as it is coupon-free wool.

Mr. Critchley: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it has been brought to his notice that considerable discrimination is being shown between workers in factories who have to obtain their working clothes, that boiler suits and bib and brace overalls as productive clothing are free of coupons, whilst workers in other essential industries such as railways, passenger transport services and various other public utility services, who must wear uniformed clothing as a necessary part of their working equipment, are compelled to surrender their coupons

for this equipment; and what steps does he propose to take to alter this anomaly?

Sir A. Duncan: As stated on 24th June, discussions are proceeding with the T.U.C. about provision under the Clothes Rationing Scheme for special occupational needs. It has already been found possible to exempt certain types of garments which are readily definable and which constitute a net addition to the wearer's essential requirements, but I cannot admit that these conditions are necessarily fulfilled by the types of garments mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Red Cross and St. John War Organisation has spent more than five-sixths of the funds collected; and whether he proposes to ask the Treasury for any money necessary to enable the despatch of parcels on the present scale to prisoners of war to be maintained?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Richard Law): I understand that the expenditure referred to covers all the various activities of the War Organisation. I am in close touch with the Organisation as regards the supply of parcels to prisoners of war, and I am informed that they have every hope that continued public generosity will enable the supply to be maintained on the present scale.

Mr. Keeling: Does my hon. Friend imply that if the Red Cross hopes are not realised the Treasury will be asked to come to their assistance?

Mr. Law: I do not think that there is any reason at all to suppose that the amount will not be realised, or that the public will not be as generous and public spirited in the future as it has been in the past.

Mr. Keeling: Does my hon. Friend realise that the country will not grudge any expenditure on this matter?

Mr. Law: Yes, Sir, I certainly realise that fact, and I can assure my hon. Friend that whatever difficulties there may be about the despatch of parcels, the financial difficulty will not be one of them.

Sir A. Knox: Will my hon. Friend suggest that this organisation should publish their accounts,?

Mr. Law: They do publish their accounts.

Captain McEwen: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Private R. B. Cheyne, 5th Gordon Highlanders, a prisoner of war in Stalag XXB, of whose death, which took place on 9th January, 1941, his parents only received notification on 20th June following; and whether any information as to the cause of his death has now been received?

Mr. Law: The death of Private Cheyne on 9th January, 1941, was first reported by the German Government in a list from Berlin received in this country early in June. No information is available as to the cause of death but inquiries have been instituted through the International Red Cross Society at Geneva and the next-of-kin will be informed as soon as any information is received. While I much regret the distress caused to the relatives by a delay of this kind, my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that the authorities in this country cannot be held responsible.

Captain McEwen: Does not my hon. Friend agree that a delay of six months in the notification of death in these circumstances is both exceptional and regrettable?

Mr. Law: Yes, Sir, it is regrettable, and I hope that it is exceptional, but the delay was caused not in this country, but in Germany.

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give the latest reliable information regarding the so-called reprisal camps Stalag XXA and Stalag XXID; and have the officers been removed from the camps following acknowledgment by the German Government of the inaccuracy of reports regarding treatment of German officers in Canada, or are there still any officers in these camps living underground and in overcrowded conditions?

Mr. Law: As my hon. and gallant Friend will have seen in the Press, information has been received through the Protecting Power that these two camps

have now been closed and all the officers detained in them have been transferred to other camps. The next-of-kin will be informed of the addresses of the new camps as soon as full details are received.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

OFFICERS' PAY AND ALLOWANCES.

Mr. Crowder: asked the Secretary of State for war whether a decision has now been reached as regards the payment of field allowance for officers?

Mr. Law: No decision has been reached to alter the conditions in regard to the payment of field allowance. Various proposals have been considered to get rid of the anomalies that admittedly arise in connection with this allowance, and there are still such proposals under examination.

Mr. Crowder: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Secretary of State said that he was aware of these anomalies four months ago, and can he expedite a settlement of this request?

Mr. Law: Yes, Sir, my right hon. Friend is very well aware of the urgency of this matter, but my hon. Friend should realise that there always have been anomalies in connection with field allowances and it is very difficult to get rid of them.

Mr. Crowder: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider raising the allowances for married subalterns to avoid the hardship which is apparent in so many cases?

Captain John Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to make a statement on allowances for married officers under the age of 30 years?

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now implement his undertaking to look into the question of officers' pay and allowances?

Mr. Law: The proposal to increase officers' allowances has raised some very difficult issues, and I regret that I am not yet in a position to give a definite reply.

Mr. Bellenger: Can the Minister give an indication whether this matter will be


settled at an early date, because in the meantime officers are suffering under this disability?

Mr. Law: I can assure my hon. Friend that we are trying to get a settlement as soon as possible. If it is possible to do anything, we want that to be decided quickly, and if, on the other hand, it should prove to be impossible, we also want that to be decided quickly.

Mr. Bellenger: If a further Question is put down before The Recess, does my right hon. Friend think that he will be in a position to give a reply?

Mr. Law: I can only say that we shall do our best.

Sir John Mellor: Will any settlement be made retrospective?

Mr. Law: I do not know whether there will be any change made in the allowance, and I should very much doubt that, if there were, it would be made retrospective.

SOLDIERS AWAITING TRIAL (DETENTION).

23. Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is the practice of commanding officers, and within Army Regulations, to detain offenders in close confinement for as much as two weeks before they are tried, pending information being received that prison or other accommodation is available; and whether this period is deducted from any sentence of imprisonment or detention passed on offenders found guilty?

Mr. Law: It is not the practice of commanding officers to detain soldiers before trial for the reasons referred to by my hon. Friend, and such a proceeding would be quite unauthorised. My right hon. Friend's attention has, however, been drawn by my hon. Friend the Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) to a particular case in which irregularities of this kind have occurred, and appropriate steps are now being taken to deal with it.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are many instances of this, and that I know of one case where there was seven weeks' detention. Would he inquire into these various cases?

Mr. Law: If the hon. Gentleman will furnish me with particulars of these cases, I will certainly look into them.

HOME GUARD.

24. Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements he has made for allotting adequate transport to the Home Guard; when such transport will be issued; of of what it consists; and what steps have been taken to see that the vehicles are in running order?

Mr. Law: I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that it would not be in the public interest to disclose details of the transport arrangements of the Home Guard, but I can assure him that adequate provision has been made to meet all requirements both now and under operational conditions.

Sir T. Moore: But why is not the Home Guard made aware of these arrangements? At present, so far as I am aware, no Home Guard officer has any information about transport if an invasion takes place. Why should they not be told what they have to do when an invasion starts?

Mr. Law: It is not customary to publish operational plans of this kind.

Sir T. Moore: Are we to get an invasion actually started before we get the cars out of the garages and the petrol put into the tanks? There would then be no time for these things.

Mr. Law: I think my hon. and gallant Friend forgets that the Home Guard is, in the main, static. I can assure him that these points have been looked after.

INFORMATION TO NEXT-OF-KIN.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the uneasiness and anxiety amongst parents and relatives of many of our soldiers who are, or have been, serving in the Middle East, Libya, in Greece and Crete, more particularly the wounded and missing, owing to the lack of information about them; whether he is satisfied that the present organisation of the British Red Cross Society and the Order of St. John of Jerusalem is functioning adequately in this matter, both in the Middle East and in London; and whether he will cause a. full inquiry to be made, with a view to securing a rapid


improvement in the receipt of authentic information about our men who are serving?

Mr. Law: I am aware of the very natural anxiety felt by relatives in this country when news of a soldier's whereabouts is not immediately available, and I can assure my hon. Friend that this question is engaging the closest attention of both the War Office and the Commander-in-Chief, Middle East. Every effort is being made by the latter to hasten the service of information about casualties, and, when the information reaches this country there is no delay in conveying it to the next-of-kin. So far as prisoners of war are concerned, the chief difficulty is that lists are not normally furnished by the enemy governments until the prisoners have reached the camps for which they are ultimately destined, but a consider able number of names obtained at intermediate points have been furnished through the good offices of the International Red Cross Committee. As regards the second part of the Question, my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension, since the War Organisation of the British Red Cross Society and the Order of St. John is not responsible for preparing lists of missing.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a feeling of frustration at the British Red Cross headquarters in this country, among those giving their services for tracing wounded, at the handicap they are working under; that there is lack of harmony in the Middle East among Red Cross workers; and does he think that the lady who is now President of the B.R.C.S. in the Middle East—who is of Italian birth—is the most appropriate person to hold this office?

Mr. Law: Yes, Sir. I am aware that the Middle East Commission of the British Red Cross is making certain inquiries on a purely voluntary basis, and I think we must be grateful to them for doing that, but the responsibility for compiling lists and obtaining information about missing men does not rest on the British Red Cross. It is on the military authorities out there.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Would my hon. Friend go further into this matter and take some urgent and effective action to allay the anxiety of people through the long

delay in hearing any news of their families and relatives, who are missing and wounded?

Mr. Law: Yes, Sir. The War Office is very much alive to the anxiety which exists at the present time, but my hon. Friend must realise that it is extremely difficult when a campaign is in progress and units are broken up, through evacuation, to get reliable information.

RETIRED OFFICERS (HONORARY RANK).

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War the result of the inter- Service discussions which have taken place regarding the grant of honorary rank to retired officers of the Regular Army and Territorial Army Reserve?

Mr. Law: Owing to the varying conditions in the three Services, it has not yet proved possible to reach a decision on this question, but I hope to be in a position to make a statement shortly.

ADMINISTRATION (STANDING COMMITTEE).

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the co-option of hon. Members of this House possessing military experience on the Standing Committee of Army Administration?

Mr. Law: Whilst, as the House is aware, my right hon. Friend is always glad to receive the views of hon. Members on any question of Army administration, he does not think that it is necessary for them to be specially co-opted to the Standing Committee on Army Administration for this purpose. As my hon. Friend is aware, the Committee as at present constituted is representative of both official and outside experience.

Mr. Bellenger: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware of the value of the considerable recent experience obtained by those hon. Members who have served in the Forces, and would it not be better to utilise them on this Committee, which is a purely Departmental Committee? Hon. Members know little about this Committee.

Mr. Law: My right hon. and gallant Friend is always very accessible to Members of this House and is anxious to avail himself of any information they have, but I think there would be some disadvantage


in co-opting hon. Members on that Committee. If it was done in the case of the hon. Gentleman, for example, my right hon. and gallant Friend would lose the benefit of his advice in this House and of his animadversions in the Sunday Press.

Major Milner: Would the hon. Gentleman publish a list of those at present on this Committee for the information of the House?

Mr. Law: I imagine that the list has been published, but I will look into it. I do not think there would be any objections.

PIONEER CORPS (ALIENS).

Miss Eleanor Rathbone: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will explain the position with regard to claims for separation allowance of alien members of the Pioneer Corps, in cases where the soldier has a wife, child, parent or other dependant normally dependent on him, but whom he was unable to support during the period immediately before joining the Corps owing to his being interned?

Mr. Law: If he is otherwise eligible, the soldier's entitlement to family allowance in respect of his wife or children is not affected in the circumstances to which my hon. Friend refers. Allowances from Army funds to other dependants are only admissible if the soldier is unable by reason of his having joined the Colours to continue a contribution which he had actually been making towards the support of the dependant during the preceding six months. In cases where the allowance is inadmissible, however, the dependant may be considered for the award of a war service grant by the Ministry of Pensions if the circumstances warrant it.

Miss Rathbone: Would it be right to inform the men concerned—they are quite few in number—that if they apply to the hardship committee of the Ministry of Pensions their cases in respect of allowances to dependants will be reconsidered?

Mr. Law: It would be in order to inform them that their cases will be considered. I hope that they may see my reply to this Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIAN MILITARY MISSION (PRESS PHOTOGRAPHS).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the action of a military intelligence officer in attempting to prevent certain Press photographs being taken on the arrival of the Russian Military Mission; by what authority this attempt was made; whether he is aware of the effective protest that was made; and whether he will see that no similar incident of this nature occurs again?

Mr. Law: Yes, Sir. No authority was given to prevent any Press photographs being taken on the arrival of the Russian Military Mission. On the contrary, the Public Relations Department of the War Office was at pains to see that photographers and news reel operators were on the spot for the very purpose of taking such photographs. The mistake was due to a misunderstanding on the part of a staff officer and was immediately put right on the spot by the senior Army officer who had gone to the station to meet the Mission. I am sure that there could be no repetition of such an incident.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of any similar incident respecting any other military mission, and does not he agree that this particular residue of yesterday's hatred and prejudice is extremely absurd?

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH RED CROSS SOCIETY (BRASSARD).

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for War the exact position regarding the undecided request of the British Red Cross Society that the Geneva brassard should be issued to its members in this war; and whether he can expedite a decision in view of the fact that its trained workers would not, under present arrangements, be entitled, in case of enemy invasion, to the protection of the Red Cross emblem?

Mr. Law: The Geneva Convention, 1929, provides that, in order to claim the protection afforded by the Convention to military medical services, personnel of voluntary societies such as the British Red Cross Society, must be subject to


military law. The only members of the British Red Cross Society therefore who are entitled to wear the Geneva Cross armlet are those who are incorporated with military medical units as determined by the Commander-in-Chief. Instructions were issued on this subject in March, 1940, and the position was subsequently made plain in correspondence with the British Red Cross Society in April of this year. I have been unable to trace any further communication from the British Red Cross Society since that date, and, so far as I am aware, no request from the Society is at present awaiting decision.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is my hon. Friend aware that the only medical services in the Home Guard are, in many cases, those provided by the British Red Cross Society?

Mr. Law: I should be very glad to hear of such a case. I was not aware of that.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

SHEEP (DOG WORRYING).

Captain McEwen: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the letter sent to him from the Scottish National Farmers' Union pointing out the damage done to flocks in Scotland by sheep-worrying dogs; and whether he has in mind any measures likely to diminish this offence?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) on 8th July, of which I am sending him a copy.

HIGHLAND FOLK MUSEUM BUILDING (REQUISITIONING).

Mr. Hannah: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the proposed requisitioning of a certain Highland Folk Museum building; and what steps he is taking to prevent the destruction of many of the exhibits in the only collection of its kind in Scotland and the sacrifice for a temporary need of valuable material for the social history of the North?

Mr. Johnston: Yes, Sir. I hope that it may be possible to find alternative accommodation, and inquiries are being directed to that end.

Mr. Hannah: Do the Government realise the supreme importance of protecting the only folk museum in the whole of Scotland?

Mr. Johnston: The degree of importance attached to this Question is evidenced by my answer.

TUBERCULOSIS.

33. Mrs. Hardie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether there has been any increase in the number of cases of tuberculosis reported this year in Scotland; and if so, will he state the age and sex groups where the increase has taken place?

Mr. Johnston: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing quarterly tuberculosis notifications for Scotland in the last 4½years. While these figures show that tuberculosis declined steadily until 1940, I regret to say that since the early part of that year an upward trend has been observed. Information as to the ages and sex of patients will not be available until after the end of the year.

Mrs. Hardie: Will my right hon. Friend use his influence to see that young girls do not have to work too long hours in bad workshops and factories?

Mr. Johnston: I think that is a matter for another Member of the Government, but I will certainly draw his attention to that point.

Mr. Kirkwood: Can my right hon. Friend tell us what is the reason for the upward move in the number of persons who have contracted tuberculosis?

Mr. Johnston: I do not think there is one reason; I think there are many reasons. There are the question of the black-out and its effects on the nerves; intensification of effort in workshops, the long winter, and sometimes the fact that workers have had to move from their ordinary habitations and take less comfortable quarters.

Mr. David Adams: Would not my right hon. Friend add to the entertaining list the quality of the milk supply?

Dr. Edith Summerskill: Would my. right hon. Friend say that part of the increase is due to the insufficiency of


nurses and that patients are being sent from our sanatoria before they are completely well, to contact their families?

Mr. Johnston: I have no evidence of that in Scotland, but if my hon. Friend will give me any evidence on that point, the Department for which I am responsible will look into it.

Following is the table:

Period.
Pulmonary.
Non-Pulmonary.
Total.
Total for the Year.


1937—


1st Quarter
1,311
796
2,107



2nd Quarter
1.341
845
2,186



3rd Quarter
1,093
580
1,673



4th Quarter
1,032
596
1,628
7.594


1938—


1st Quarter
1.305
758
2,063



2nd Quarter
1.347
873
2,220



3rd Quarter
1,039
555
1.594



4th Quarter
1,066
541
1,607
7.484


1939—


1st Quarter
1,306
6.57
1,963



2nd Quarter
1,414
821
2,235



3rd Quarter
976
493
1,469



4th Quarter
1,023
486
1,509
7,176


1940—


1st Quarter
1,206
555
1,761



2nd Quarter
1.519
771
2,290



3rd Quarter
1,219
616
1.835



4th Quarter
1,165
619
1.784
7,670


1941—


1st Quarter
1.337
600
1.937



2nd Quarter
1.637
778
2,415

WOMEN'S LAND ARMY

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will consider creating central hostels in Scotland where girls of the Land Army can be accommodated under suitable supervision; and whether their physical and moral well-being can be guaranteed?

Mr. Johnston: Some hostels have already been established for members of the Women's Land Army and others are in contemplation. Their establishment is only contemplated when no suitable accommodation on farms is otherwise available. I have no reason to suppose that the accommodation provided on or near farms is generally unsatisfactory but I am making inquiries about certain specific cases which my hon. and gallant

Friend has sent me, and I will communicate with him on the subject as soon as possible

Sir T. Moore: Will my right hon. Friend at the same time consider instructing those responsible for these girls in the many parts of Scotland where there is no adequate provision, that this is a matter which really concerns every mother in Scotland?

Mr. Johnston: Yes. Sir, most certainly; but as the hon. and gallant Member knows, we have made every provision at the centre for protection of that kind, and I will readily have inquiries made into alleged breaches of the instruction.

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements are in force for ensuring that applicants for the Land Army are physically fit for the duties they are called on to perform?

Mr. Johnston: Applicants for enlistment in the Women's Land Army are required to produce medical certificates to the effect that they are in good health and suffering from no disability likely to unfit them for work on the land.

Sir T. Moore: Will my right hon. Friend make further inquiries? What he says may be true, but it is not carried out in practice, as there is no demand for an examination or a medical certificate. Is there any logical reason why recruits for the Regular Army should go through an examination, whereas those for the Land Army are taken irrespective of whether or not they are in any way fit for the work?

Mr. Johnston: All I can say is that instructions to that effect were given, and if my hon. and gallant Friend will give me particulars of any case where the instructions are not being enforced, I will certainly look into the matter.

Viscountess Astor: Is it not the case that sometimes those who are unfit are passed and those who are fit are not passed?

Mr. Johnston: That may be so, but it is not the Question on the Paper.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will inquire into the methods of working of the


Kirkcaldy and District Appeals Tribunal for old age pensioners, in view of numerous complaints of the lack of generosity in their findings as compared with other similar tribunals in Scotland?

Mr. Johnston: The hon. Member has brought a particular case to my notice, and I have asked the Assistance Board to look into it. I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as I receive their report. I have no evidence that the Kirkcaldy and District Appeals Tribunal proceeds on different lines from other similar tribunals in Scotland.

Mr. Gallacher: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that there are very many complaints from applicants about the lack of generosity shown to them, and particularly in the Kirkcaldy district, and will he draw attention to the necessity for showing all consideration to old age pensioners?

Mr. Johnston: I have no evidence of that, and I shall be glad if my hon. Friend will give me any particulars he has.

BOMBED-OUT PERSONS.

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will take further steps to mitigate the sufferings of poor persons evacuated from their homes in Clyde side after enemy bombing, and in particular to repay them the money they must spend on the storage of their remaining goods, to enable them, to draw relief, not in kind but in cash, for necessaries of life, invalid diet and the like, and to increase billeting allowances for these victims of air raids?

Mr. Johnston: The measures for the relief of persons rendered homeless by enemy action are constantly under review. The Minister of Home Security has asked local authorities to help homeless persons to remove and store their furniture where they are unable to do this themselves. Arrangements have been made by the Assistance Board for the immediate provision of relief in cash including where necessary allowances for exceptional needs. Billeting allowances are paid, not to the homeless persons themselves, but to the householders who receive them. The lodging allowances without board which are 5s. per adult and 3s. for each child under 14 have not been generally regarded as inadequate.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that the London County Council bear all expenses for storing furniture when the people are sent away?

Mr. Johnston: Yes, Sir. That is in accordance with instructions that have been issued by the Ministry of Home Security in cases where the persons themselves do not desire to make their own arrangements for storing their furniture.

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that, despite assurances given to him by the Factors' Association and the individual cases already remedied by him, cases still occur over a wide area where poor people are having rent demanded from them by factors for houses which have been demolished in the various bombings of Clydeside; and whether he will take further steps to make known to all the victims of air raids that protection will immediately be afforded to them against such demands?

Mr. Johnston: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. The town clerks of certain Clydeside burghs and the Secretary of the Property Owners' and Factors' Association of whom I have made inquiries are not aware of any case of this kind. But I shall, as my hon. Friend knows, be glad to look into any case of which he sends me particulars. As regards the second part of the Question, a Bill dealing with the rent to be paid in respect of houses suffering from war damage is at present before the House.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the difficulty is to get the factors to put it in writing, and what does he think of the following communication:

3, Hume Street, Clydebank.

13th June, 1941.

To Mrs. Cecilia Gillespie,

c/o O'Donnell, 6, Greenavenue, Kirkintilloch.

Dear Sir or Madam,—We shall be pleased to have early settlement of rent due by you for house at 5, Bruce Street, Clydebank. The amount due to 28th May, 1941, in advance, is £6 1s.—Yours faithfully, Hacking and Paterson."

Mr. Johnston: I shall be glad if my hon. Friend will let me have those particulars, and I will lose no time in having inquiries made.

Mr. Buchanan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the Glasgow Sheriff Court the sheriff has decided that rent is payable for this class of house, and that certain factors have taken advantage of this; and will he make inquiries into the matter and see that the sheriff in question bears in mind common decency?

Mr. Johnston: All I can say is that I have seen the circular in which the Property Owners' and Factors' Association have advised their members not to charge rent for any blitzed house which is not occupied.

Mr. Kirkwood: But this is signed by David Paterson, who is chairman of the Factors' Association. What do you propose to do about it?

Mr. Johnston: I should be delighted if my hon. Friend would come and talk to me about it, and if there is any injustice, I will look into it.

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that feu duty is still being claimed for land on which houses have been demolished by enemy action or are being pulled down as a result; and whether he will ensure that this practice is stopped in future, and that refund will be made to all persons who have already been obliged to pay?

Mr. Johnston: I have received no representations about the matter referred to. Under Section 4 of the War Damage to Land (Scotland) Act, 1939, the court may, on application being made to it, modify or suspend any term of a disposition or feu charter where war damage has occurred to the land or buildings to which it relates.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

DOMESTIC SUPPLIES.

Mr. Purbrick: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will enable coal rations, instead of being ton deliveries in every month, to be taken all together when the consumer so desires and can obtain delivery, so as to relieve the congestion through transport when the winter comes, and so making more transport available for those who have not the facilities for taking in a larger quantity at one time?

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): As I explained in the House on Thursday last, it is quite incorrect to regard the new restrictions on coal deliveries as a rationing scheme, as commonly understood. The main object is to prevent the accumulation of excessive stocks by fortunately placed individuals to the prejudice of other consumers at a later date, and action on the lines suggested would tend to defeat this object.

41. Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary for Mines whether, in order to lessen the strain on the railways in the coming winter, consumers with sufficient storage accommodation will be allowed now to purchase coal up to the quantity consumed last year?

Mr. Grenfell: I am fully alive to the need for reducing the winter strain on our transport and for that reason have consistently pressed, this year as last year, for the maximum possible dispersal of coal stocks over the country during the summer months. But, as the hon. and-gallant Member knows, we are short of coal this year, and if essential war production is to be maintained, household supplies must be cut down. To permit those consumers with ample storage accommodation to lay down stocks equivalent to their last year's consumption, must result in others having to go short next winter.

Sir A. Knox: If these people cannot now get coal equivalent to the amount of stocks, what possible chance is there for people who have no. cellar accommodation getting coal in the winter when there is a general strain on the railways?

Mr. Grenfell: I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend would like to see everybody have the same opportunity to put by a little coal, and that is our object.

Mr. T. Smith: Do we not take it from that answer that the Minister is desirous to see that big consumers do not get stocks if that is going to prevent small householders from obtaining a fair supply?

Mr. Grenfell: There is no discrimination against anyone. We have to safeguard as far as possible the spreading of stocks so that everyone gets a little. We are not going to run the risk of sending all the coal now being produced to large consumers so that the small consumers are left out entirely.

Sir A. Knox: Is not a small surplus of coal now being produced in excess of the summer consumption; and would it not be better to get that into the cellars of those who have the accommodation, and so clear the way for poor people who have not the accommodation to store coal before the winter?

Mr. Grenfell: I am sure that if my hon. and gallant Friend looks into the answer closely, he will see that we are doing the right thing in the interests of the majority.

Captain Strickland: Does the Minister give full weight to the present allocation, whereby a person who necessarily has to consume more coal than another is prejudiced by the distribution of one ton per month, irrespective of the needs of the household?

Mr. Grenfell: There is permission to supply more than one ton of coal per month, but a case must be made out. Machinery has been devised to give full weight to all the considerations that hon. Members have mentioned.

Sir Francis Fremantle: Is the Minister aware that a case was so made out and permission given me for 60 tons for the nursery school in my house?

Sir G. Jeffreys: asked the Secretary for Mines how the new coal-rationing scheme will be applied to hotels, blocks of flats, and large houses, respectively, which employ central heating; and whether, in the case of large houses where there is no central heating but a large number of occupants, the ration will be the same as in the case of a small dwelling where the residents are very few?

Major McCallum: asked the Secretary for Mines whether, in the new domestic coal-rationing scheme, it is proposed that all households, regardless of the number of persons or size of house, shall receive the same allocation of coal per month; and, if so, whether he will reconsider the matter, with a view to allowing extra rations to households, both large and small, who are accommodating evacuees from dangerous areas?

Wing-Commander James: asked the Secretary for Mines whether the announcement made by his Department, on 3rd July, is intended to mean that a flat-rate

issue of coal and coke for domestic consumption is intended, irrespective of the locality of the consumer, the size of the house, the number of persons in it, the methods of consumption installed, and all the other factors governing needs?

Sir Granville Gibson: asked the Secretary for Mines whether fuel-rationing schemes are meant to apply so that, for example, a provincial dwelling-house with six permanent occupants will be allowed the same basic fuel rations as a large provincial dwelling containing six permanent occupants plus eight evacuees, of whom some are children, but subject to the claim for hardship and local test, or will ration schemes be first based on so much per occupant without a test arising from a hardship claim and its irritating delays; and why were not automatic per head rations announced originally, so as to avoid uncertainties in applying the schemes at the outset?

Mr. Grenfell: As I have already explained, the restrictions which have been imposed for the present on the stocking and delivery of domestic coal, are not a rationing scheme designed to limit consumption, but are meant to prevent the accumulation by fortunately placed individuals of excessive stocks during the next few months at the expense of the public generally. I am satisfied that the figures which have been fixed are reasonable for the great majority of house-coal consumers, but in any case where, on account of the size of the premises, the number of occupants, the method of heating or any other factor, the occupier is of opinion that hardship will result from the application of the specified limits, he may make application to the local fuel overseer who will, if satisfied that the case has been made out, issue a licence under Article 5A of the Fuel and Lighting Order for the delivery of a larger quantity of coal.

Sir G. Gibson: Is the Minister aware that where households do not normally use one ton per month, it may conceivably happen that those householders, fearing they may not obtain a supply later on, may start hoarding now to the maximum quantity?

Mr. Grenfell: Yes, Sir, but it would not be a very large amount compared with some larger stocks which may be set aside unnecessarily.

Captain Strickland: Is the Minister aware that in Coventry to-day you cannot get a ton of coal per month, because the coal is not there?

Wing-Commander James: I beg to give notice, in view of the nature of the answer, that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Sir G. Gibson: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will accept the principle that where house coal, anthracite or coke is available, farms and houses in outlying country districts, which are difficult of access in inclement wintry weather, are permitted to store coal, etc., during the good weather period to cover the winter period, on condition that the total amount does not exceed the one ton per month allowed by the order; is he aware that the cost of delivering coal to outlying districts, sometimes many miles from the depot, in one ton lots will be excessive and consume unnecessarily large quantities of petrol and save heavy demurrage charges; and will he indicate a policy to meet these seasonal difficulties?

Mr. Grenfell: Instructions are being issued to my local officers that in dealing with applications from consumers for per-mission to acquire in any month a larger quantity of coal than than specified, they should have regard to various factors including those enumerated by the hon. Member. The amount which such consumers should be permitted to acquire would, of course, be determined by the available supplies and the reasonable requirements of the premises in question.

Sir G. Gibson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the scheme is so confusing and lacking in simplicity that he would be well advised to scrap it and confine his energies to getting more coal out of the ground?

Mr. Grenfell: I am sure that if we scrapped it, the evils would be much more serious. My hon. Friend may not yet know that there is a great disparity in the opportunities for stocking, and it is my Business and concern to act in the interests of the largest number

Captain Strickland: Is my hon. Friend aware that people do not stock coal for the fun of the thing but because they want it?

Mr. Grenfell: I am sure that I have more information on this matter than my hon. and gallant Friend has.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Will my hon. Friend see, that people with large houses are not able to yield an undue influence on controllers to get more coal than they are entitled to?

Sir William Davison: Will my hon. Friend consider allowing persons who have the means of stocking up to their ration to do so provided the coal is available?

Mr. Grenfell: It is not intended to curtail supplies for any consumer where the coal is available, but when it is short it is the duty of the Mines Department to see that the supplies are made equally available to all classes of consumer.

Mr. Shinwell: When coal supplies are short, why is it allowed to be exported?

Mr. Grenfell: My hon. Friend knows that the quality of the coal which is exported is not the same as the coal which is consumed for domestic purposes.

EXPORTS.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary for Mines the total amount of coal and coke exported from this country in the first six months of the present year?

Mr. Grenfell: It would not be in the public interest to provide the figures required, but I will send them to the hon. Member for his own information confidentially.

Mr. Shinwell: If it is not in the public interest to inform the House and the country what volume of coal and coke has been exported to other countries, is it not in the public interest to assure us, in view of the shortage of coal and the prospects of severe privations due to the shortage, that we should be certain that no coal is being exported? When the Minister states that he will send the documents to me, will he also give particulars of the amount of coal exported to Spain?

Mr. Grenfell: Yes, Sir, if that is the information the hon. Member especially requires. He can rest assured that we are paying attention to the need for conserving coal for home requirements. I would not be wrongly divulging any special information if I told the House that we are going to cut down exports.

Mr. Shinwell: Are we to understand that it is the policy of the Mines Department, and the Government, to continue to export coal when we are told we may shiver this winter? Is it intended that that should be the policy?.

Mr. Grenfell: I do not think we are going to shiver; I think we shall have sufficient coal for our use. The first claim for the consumption of coal produced in this country is to be given to the people of this country and the industries of this country.

Mr. Shinwell: May I give notice now that on perusal of the figures which my hon. Friend proposes to send me, I may desire to ask permission to raise this matter on the Adjournment?

Mr. Bellenger: On a point of Order. The Secretary for Mines has offered to send these figures to my hon. Friend who proposes to raise the matter on the Adjournment. In view of the fact that other hon. Members may wish to take part in that Debate, are they also entitled to that information if they so desire it?

Mr. Speaker: No doubt the figures could be supplied to other hon. Members who desire to have them.

MINERS (LATE ARRIVAL FOR WORK).

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Secretary for Mines how many working shifts are lost at mines owing to the refusal of managements to allow workmen who arrive late to proceed to their work; and whether he can take steps to secure that when the late arrival of the workmen is due to circumstances outside their control arrangements will be made to enable the men to proceed to their work?

Mr. Grenfell: No figures of the kind asked for are available. The question raised is one more suitable for discussion locally between the two sides of the industry—either through the Coal Production Committee or otherwise—than for action centrally.

Mr. Griffiths: Is my hon. Friend aware that the amount of absenteeism in mines is due to men who, through no fault of their own, have arrived late, and will he make representations to the owners that they should relax this rule?

Mr. Grenfell: I am glad that my hon. Friend has given the House that informa-

tion. The owners are well aware of the difficulty of getting full attendance at the collieries, and I hope that better facilities will be provided.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Is my hon. Friend aware that referring it back to the local areas where the trouble exists will do no good, and is his Department prepared, where these difficulties exist locally, to step in and take definite action?

Mr. Grenfell: I do not even know the number of these cases. They occur locally and are known to the people locally, and they are the only people who can judge whether there has been any fault on the part of the workmen. Until it is laid down that the local machinery is inadequate, it is useless my Department stepping in.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN SECRETARY'S SPEECH (COMMAND PAPER).

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Prime Minister the reason for printing as a Command Paper [Cmd. 6289] the report of a speech made at a public meeting by a Minister of the Crown?

The Lord President of the Council (Sir John Anderson): It was ascertained that such a course would be agreeable to a number of hon. Members, and in view of the nature of the speech in question, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister thinks it fitting that it should have been printed as a Command Paper.

Sir H. Williams: Will the Lord President say which hon. Members were consulted? Is there any precedent for a speech made by a Minister of the Crown at a public meeting being subsequently printed as a Parliamentary paper?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not a fact that in the speech the Foreign Secretary made statements of the highest possible: importance on policy on behalf of His Majesty's Government, and that these statements were not reported either in the public Press or on the wireless? Is it not a fact it was highly desirable that hon. Members and members of the Press and foreign Press should have the full text available for their use?

Sir J. Anderson: I think that is a consideration which weighed, and in this


way a copy of a very important speech was made available in the most convenient form.

Sir H. Williams: Having regard to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has answered the second supplementary question, will he please answer my supplementary question?

Sir J. Anderson: The first part of my hon. Friend's Question asked who were the hon. Members whose views had been ascertained. I cannot answer that offhand, but I will obtain the information and let my hon. Friend know.

Sir H. Williams: As the usual channels are now rather numerous, is it not desirable, before a precedent of this kind is created, that the sanction of the House should be obtained as a whole, because, after all, if one Minister's speech is to be printed, why should not speeches made by other Members be printed as well if they contain important statements?

Sir J. Anderson: I do not think it is correct to say that the action taken was unprecedented. I confess I cannot see any reason why any hon. Member whose convenience may be served by this procedure should complain. There are two other very important speeches, one delivered by the late Lord Lothian and another by Lord Halifax—

Sir H. Williams: Not in this country.

Sir J. Anderson: It is true they were not made in this country, but these speeches have been printed as Command Papers. The speech to which reference has been made was a speech of considerable importance made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Perhaps I may explain. A few days after this speech was made—[Interruption.]

Mr. Silverman: On a point of Order. In view of the fact that I have made attempts to put a Supplementary Question on this very important matter ever since the first Question was asked, and that I gave way when I thought—

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Oral Answers to Questions — SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

Major Procter: asked the Lord President of the Council what machinery has been set up by the Scientific Advisory Committee for examining new scientific or technical developments which may be of importance to the war effort?

Sir J. Anderson: The principle adopted by the Committee is that any new scientific or technical development which may be of importance to our war effort shall be referred for examination to authorities competent in the subject. The range of such developments is very wide and the procedure varies according to the circumstances of the case. The machinery, therefore, is flexible.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

WAR LOANS.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give an assurance that no further War Loans will be raised at a greater rate of interest than 2 per cent.?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): No, Sir.

Mr. Stokes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be great concern in the country if he attempts to raise a loan at a higher rate of interest, and that there is a growing body of opinion which is conscious of the fact that the war can be financed at a low rate of interest if we set about it in the right way?

Sir K. Wood: I am indebted to the hon. Member for suggestions that he has made, which, however, I have not hitherto been able to adopt.

Mr. Buchanan: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Secretary of State for Scotland, who wrote a pamphlet during the last war on interest-free loans?

REQUISITIONED INDIAN LOANS.

Mr. Liddall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Treasury recently requisitioned dated Indian loans without giving choice between refusal and acceptance of the market, or any other price, so that holders might, if they had preferred to


do so, retain their investment until the earliest contractual repayment date; how, in this case the principle has been observed which he has laid down that there should be no infraction of an agreement calculated to undermine the contractual basis upon which borrowers invited the public to subscribe to dated loans; and whether the contract as to earliest date of repayment had been previously cancelled by agreement between lenders and the Treasury or the Indian Government?

Sir K. Wood: As I have already stated, the securities were acquired by the Treasury at the market price and there was no infraction of an agreement between lenders and borrowers. The grant to the holders of an option such as that suggested by my hon. Friend would have defeated the essential object of this transaction, which was to purchase the securities at market price from the holders for re-sale by the Treasury to the Government of India.

FRUIT AND VEGETABLE MARKET (PROFITS).

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: asked the Chanceller of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to ensure that the Treasury does not sustain losses by reason of the large-scale cash transactions in the fruit and vegetable black market, of which transactions the traders keep no book records?

Sir K. Wood: I presume my hon. Friend has in mind the due taxation of trading profits arising from cash transactions. inspectors of Taxes, whose duty it is to satisfy themselves so far as possible that traders are charged to tax on their full profits are alive to the possible absence of cash transactions from the normal trading records, and take appropriate steps to ensure that the full profits are assessed where they have reason to believe that a correct return has not been delivered.

Mr. Walkden: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to examine representations which have recently been made by the London and Liverpool Chambers of Commerce, and is he aware of the allegations that they make that it may be very diff-cult in a few months' time to point to an honest man in the fruit and vegetable market at all?

Sir K. Wood: I regret to hear the latter statement. I will gladly examine any

particulars that are sent to me; I should like individual cases.

Mr. Walkden: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult with the Minister of Food. as he has the evidence?

TAP TREASURY BILLS.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sum has been paid as interest on bills issued by tap between 1st January and 30th June, 1941; and what has been the average monthly sum so borrowed?

Sir K. Wood: The total amount of interest paid on tap Treasury bills during the six months ended 30th June, 1941, was rather less than £4,000,000: generally speaking, this sum accrued directly or indirectly for the benefit of the Exchequer. It has never been the practice to publish monthly averages of the sums so borrowed.

Mr. Stokes: What is the rate of discount?

Sir K. Wood: If the hon. Member puts a Question down, I will answer it.

INCOME TAX (CHILDREN'S ALLOWANCES).

Miss Eleanor Rathbone: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated value of rebates on Income Tax claimable in respect of dependent children in the current year; and what was the actual value of such rebates last year?

Sir K. Wood: It is not possible to quote actual figures for the past year, but it is estimated that the cost of the allowances for children will be about £50,000,000. The estimate for the current year is about £80,000,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — WELSH CHURCH COMMISSION.

54. Sir Robert Bird: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the expenses of the Welsh Church Commission are paid wholly out of the church funds held in the hands of the Commission; and what is the procedure followed for the authorisation of the payments?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir. Provision is made in the Welsh Church Act, 1914 (Sub-section 6 of Section 10), for the payment of salaries and incidental expenses out of moneys in the hands of the Commission which are derived from Welsh


ecclesiastical property vested in them under Section 4 of the Act. With regard to the second part of the Question, the 1914 Act provides that the salaries and expenses of the Commission shall be sanctioned by the Treasury with whom the Commissioners are in direct communication.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR DAMAGE (DEMOLITION BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES).

Major Milner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the unnecessary demolition orders being made on war damaged properties by some local authorities which will result in vastly increased claims upon the War Damage Commission; whether owners have any right of appeal against such demolition orders; what instructions have been issued on this matter; and what steps he proposes to take to avoid this practice?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Miss Wilkinson): I have been asked to reply. I assume that my hon. Friend refers to work undertaken by local authorities as a direct consequence of war damage. Local authorities are authorised to act under Defence Regulations in the demolition and clearance of sites which have suffered war damage, where such action is necessary for public safety, the clearance of traffic routes, restoration of essential services, the safeguarding of public health, the prevention of fire risks or the salvage of goods. Subject to the specific approval of the Regional Commissioner, local authorities may also tidy up sites in built-up areas within certain limits. Where action is taken under the Defence Regulations there is no formal right of appeal, but representations by the owner would be given careful consideration. Local authorities have been reminded of the need to conserve all repairable property and they should have regard to the interests of the owner and of the War Damage Commission. I am not aware that unnecessary demolition is taking place, and if my hon. and gallant Friend will let me know of any cases he has in mind, I will have them investigated.

Major Milner: I have sent particulars of a number of these cases. Have they not been perused in the Department? Is there any outside advice taken, for

example that of the district valuers or the local surveyor, as to whether property should or should not be demolished? Does the hon. Lady appreciate that claims amounting to many millions of pounds will be made against the War Damage Commission which ought not to have arisen?

Miss Wilkinson: We have read the cases that my hon. and gallant Friend has sent in, and we frankly think there is a point in his Question. The question is very largely settled by local authorities. I could arrange, if he wishes, for him to have a discussion with our experts in the matter.

Major Milner: Is not the Department doing anything about it? Is there no authority to decide the matter?

Miss Wilkinson: We have every authority to decide the matter if a sufficient number of cases are put before us.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE (WAGE DEDUCTIONS).

Mr. Liddall: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the fact that, when weekly payment is made to the lower graded Civil Service, deductions for insurance and Income Tax are made, without any account being rendered and without particulars of deduction; whether he will give instructions that all payments show the amount of wages and overtime, if any, together with the amount of deductions and particulars thereof, so that check can be made; and whether he will arrange for each person to be fully informed as to the method of claiming allowances and relief?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): It is the normal practice to give details of all deductions in the weekly wage lists and such details are available at the time of payment. My hon. Friend may, however, have in mind a case where, on account of the dispersal of certain branches of a Department, such details have not been immediately available at the pay centre. Steps are being taken to see whether in such a case these details can readily be given at the time of payment. In reply to the last part of the Question, every person from whose pay tax is deducted receives each year a form which gives particulars of the allowances and reliefs that


may be claimed and on which he can make a claim for the allowances and reliefs to which he is entitled.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR DAMAGE COMMISSION(SOUTH-EAST LONDON REGIONAL OFFICE).

Mrs. Adamson: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction of local authorities and the general public at the location North of the Thames of the War-Damage Commission South-East London Regional Office, and of the inconvenience in travel and loss of time to those affected; and if he will take immediate steps to transfer the office to a site within its own area readily accessible to the population for inquiries, interviews and negotiation of claims?

Captain Crookshank: While it is true that certain local authorities have represented that the Commission's London Regional office for the South-East area should be moved so as to be within that area, there is no evidence to support the suggestion that the situation of the office causes general inconvenience to the public. Every effort was made to secure suitable premises within the area in order to avoid offence to local susceptibilities, but without success. Removal of the office at the present time would cause undesirable delay and disorganisation in dealing with claims even if suitable alternative premises could now be obtained.

Mrs. Adamson: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that it takes two hours to travel from some parts of the district to the office, and that people do not want to lose the time or the money involved?

Captain Crookshank: It would take time if it was necessary to go to the office, but there is no need for people to attend personally.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARAFFIN (RURAL AREAS).

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Secretary for Petroleum whether he is aware that in many villages, as in Wiltshire where there are many evacuated children, all the cooking of the household has to be done on an oil stove, there being no gas or elec-

tricity as in towns; and whether an increased allowance of oil will be made in such cases to permit of a supply of hot water and of cooked meals?

The Secretary for Petroleum (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): Yes, Sir. The arrangements made by the Petroleum Board for the supply of paraffin provide for special consideration being given to rural districts of which the population has been increased by evacuation.

Sir P. Hurd: Does my hon. Friend know that the ration has been recently decreased? Had he that in mind as well when we made that answer?

Mr. Lloyd: If my hon. Friend has any special case, I will look into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEWFOUNDLAND (EDUCATION).

66 Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether education is free and universal in Newfoundland at the present time?

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Shakespeare): Education in Newfoundland is conducted by the Churches, with the assistance of grants from the Newfoundland Government. The law does not provide for free or compulsory education but the school fees are for the most part purely nominal and are remitted in cases of need. There has been a substantial increase in the educational facilities provided since the establishment of the Commission of Government, and the importance to be attached to education as an essential part of the Commission's programme of reconstruction is fully realised.

Sir J. Lucas: Will the Minister do his best to see that this is made free and universal?

Dr. Summerskill: Could my hon. Friend say what degree of illiteracy there is in Newfoundland?

Mr. Shakespeare: I cannot without notice.

Earl Winterton: Is my hon. Friend aware that Newfoundland is generally supposed to have the highest degree of illiteracy among any white people in the world owing to the lack of education?

Mr. Shakespeare: Without expressing a definite opinion, I would say that there is too much illiteracy, but the provision of education in Newfoundland presents very difficult problems in view of the fact that it has a coastline of 4,000 miles, with a large number of scattered outposts.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (PRODUCTION DEBATE).

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): I have a few words to say about the Business of the House. I am somewhat concerned at the effects produced abroad and overseas by the two days' Debate on Production. Statements that our industry is only working 75 per cent. of some unspecified standard and that the Ministry of Aircraft Production is in chaos from top to bottom tend to give a general impression in the United States and the Dominions, particularly Australia, that things are being very ill-managed here and that we are not trying our best. It is impossible for the newspapers to report our Debates except in a very abridged form, but sensational statements of this kind telegraphed all over the world do serious harm to our cause wherever they go. Moreover, they do not at all represent the immense and well-directed effort which is yielding remarkable results in almost every field of war production, and they do far from justice to the admirable tenure of the Ministry of Supply by my right hon. Friend the present President of the Board of Trade. I much regret that it was not possible for me, because of the many other things I have to do, to be present in the House except during the closing speeches of that Debate. It is obviously not possible for considered Ministerial answers to be submitted to these charges on the spur of the moment. It is not like ordinary party, peace-time fighting, when any score handed across the Table is good enough for the purposes of the occasion. These are very serious times in which we live. I have, however, read thoroughly the OFFICIAL REPORT of the two days' Debate, and I have given directions that all allegations of any serious substance shall be sent to the various Departments concerned in order that the facts may be ascertained. On the Third Sitting Day after 20th July I propose to set up the same Votes as were under discussion last

week and to have a third day's Debate, in Public Session. I will myself endeavour to make a full and comprehensive statement on the whole question of production so far as the public interest permits. I hope by this means, which is inspired by the greatest possible respect for the House, to remove any mistaken and evil impression which may be doing us harm in any part of the world.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the Prime Minister, with reference to the statement he proposes to make on Production, whether he proposes on that occasion to initiate a Debate or merely to make a statement?

The Prime Minister: I propose to have a third day's Debate and to initiate the Debate myself, and it will then be open for anyone to take up the quarrel, if they think there is any public advantage in so doing.

Mr. Shinwell: I did not myself participate in last week's Debate and so at least I can put a question with perfect freedom. I gather that the right hon. Gentleman suggested that it was difficult for Ministers to make an impromptu reply to all the points raised in the Debate. Is it not also difficult for hon. Members who are not in the Government to make a reply to my right hon. Friend, and will it not be perhaps even more difficult when he, who is in full possession of all the information, has initiated the Debate? Would it not be more desirable for my right hon. Friend to make a statement which can be read in the OFFICIAL REPORT by hon. Members and for us to have a Debate later on?

The Prime Minister: I do not mind, but when statements are made affecting the whole of our production, and the character of our production, perhaps an hour or two before the end of the Debate, it is quite impossible for Ministers to do justice to them in their answers. If we were engaged in ordinary party politics it would be quite easy to throw cheap scores across the House, to the gratification of the supporters of a Government who are in a majority; but in time of war time for the preparation of a much more reasoned answer is required. Grave consideration has to be given not only to the actual facts but to what part of those facts can be stated in public, and in what form


they can be stated in public, and I certainly could not undertake to answer all the charges that are made in the course of a Debate without having the opportunity of considering the matter maturely and comprehensively beforehand.

Earl Winterton: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question about the course of the Debate? I presume that if the right hon. Gentleman makes his opening statement in answer to the points which were made in the course of the previous Debate, other hon. Members will follow him. Will some Minister reply at the end of the Debate, so that there will be, as it were, answers given to the answerers? Some hon. Members may have the temerity to differ from the view put by the right hon. Gentleman.

The Prime Minister: Every endeavour will be made to preserve the general liveliness of our discussions.

Mr. Maxton: While appreciating the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty, namely, that it is more difficult to reply in wartime to charges made by his supporters, than it is in peace-time to answer charges made by his opponents, may I ask him this question? Since it is, as he says, the effect created abroad by these statements which is disturbing, will the right hon. Gentleman turn his attention to the fact that he has a Ministry of Information which exercises control over what is to go abroad? If the Government had dealt a little more efficiently with the Debate of a week ago, they would not have had any difficulty about the forthcoming Debate.

The Prime Minister: The Ministry of Information places no ban upon full publication all over the world of the public Debates in this House. Anything that is said here goes into these other countries, and that is why great responsibility attaches to what is said here.

Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not only people abroad who are disturbed about these statements but people in this country and that there will be great satisfaction that he has undertaken to meet these points? Will he also take note of the fact that whatever the circumstances, it has been a rather too frequent practice on the part of Ministers to evade answering questions and criticisms?

The Prime Minister: I cannot admit that there has been any practice of evasion. I do not see why we should evade. We neither need to evade nor to shrink from dividing if necessary and we are perfectly capable of defending ourselves, but in a time of war when the affairs of the country are very complicated, and when enormous business is divided among a great number of Ministers, it is not possible to give the same answers on every topic that is raised as could be done when the ordinary party fight was in progress. Every prominent politician on both sides is well acquainted with that fact.

Mr. Mander: In the forthcoming Debate on Production, would the Prime Minister be good enough to bear in mind the friendly advice given to the Government from all parts of the House last week, in regard to the setting up of a Ministry of Production; and would he be good enough to deal with that in the course of the proceedings?

The Prime Minister: I am always indebted to my hon. Friend for the great quantity of friendly advice which he is always ready to give, but I should like to have the opportunity of preparing my own speech in my own way.

Mr. Pickthorn: Is it intended to have the same procedure about the Propaganda Debate as about the Production Debate, that is, to have a supplementary Debate to fill the gaps and correct the errors?

The Prime Minister: I do not think I regard the Propaganda Debate as one which has the same far-reaching consequences upon our reputation for carrying on the war, as to reflections upon our system of production. As far as the Government are concerned, I do not think that is likely.

Viscountess Astor: Unless the Government take notice of that Debate on Propaganda—which was the worst day this Government has ever had in the House—it may have far more disastrous results in foreign countries, than anything said about Supply.

The Prime Minister: I do not agree at all. I think the newspapers have given most interesting and vivid and lively accounts, and I think the B.B.C. have


given very excellent accounts of what is going on—more than have ever been attempted in time of war before.

Mr. Garro Jones: May I put one point to the Prime Minister? As one who was present during the whole of the earlier Debate and made some small contribution to its earlier stages, may I ask whether, in addition to the criticisms that were made, he will take into account also the many constructive suggestions which were put forward and whether in his opening statement, on the next occasion, he will provide some answers to them?

The Prime Minister: I will do my best to serve the House, but I think I should be trespassing on their indulgence, if I carried on this heterogeneous colloquy any longer.

WAR SITUATION.

Mr. Lees-Smith: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has any information to give the House with regard to the Russian Agreement?

The Prime Minister: Towards the end of last week it became possible to make a solemn agreement between the British and Russian Governments, carrying with it the full assent of the British and Russian people and all the great Dominions of the Crown, for united action against the common foe. Both the British and Russian Governments have undertaken to continue the war against Hitlerite Germany to the utmost of their strength, to help each other as much as possible in every way and not to make peace separately. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the right hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir Stafford Cripps), our Ambassador in Moscow, were indefatigable in carrying matters to a swift conclusion. The Agreement which has been signed, the text of which has been published, cannot fail to exercise a highly beneficial and potent influence on the future of the war. It is, of course, an Alliance, and the Russian people are now our Allies. General Smuts has, with his usual commanding wisdom, made a comment which, as it entirely represents the view of His Majesty's Government, I should like to repeat now. He says:
Let no one say that we are now in league with Communists and are fighting the battle

of Communism. More fitly can neutralists and fence sitters be charged with fighting the battle of Nazism. If Hitler, in his insane megalomania, has driven 'Russia to fighting in self-defence, we bless her arms and wish her all success, without for a moment identifying ourselves with her Communistic creed. Hitler has made her his enemy and not us friendly to her creed, just as previously he treacherously made her his friend without embracing her Communism.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, in these busy days, has also been instrumental in bringing about a very great measure of agreement between the Russian Soviet State and the Polish Republic. These negotiations have not yet reached their conclusion, but I am very hopeful that, aided by the statesmanship of General Sikorski, another important step will soon be taken in the marshalling of all the peoples of the world against the criminals who have darkened its life and menaced its future.
The House will also have read, I have no doubt, the good news from Syria. A military Convention has been signed, in a cordial spirit on both sides, putting an end to a period of fratricidal strife between Frenchmen and Frenchmen, and also between Frenchmen and British, Australian and Indian soldiers, all of whom drew the sword of their own free will in defence of the soil of France. The fact that our relations, such as they are, with the Vichy Government have not been worsened during these weeks of distressing fighting, when the forces on both sides acquitted themselves with so much discipline, skill and gallantry, is a proof of the deep comprehension of the French people of the true issues at stake in the world.' It is a manifestation of that same spirit which leads them to wave encouragement to our bombing aircraft, although the bombs have, in the hard fortune of war, to be cast on French territory because it is in enemy hands.
We seek no British advantage in Syria. Our only object in occupying the country has been to beat the Germans and help to win the war. We rejoice that with the aid of the forces of General de Gaulle, led by General Catroux and General Legentilhomme, we have been able to bring to the peoples of Syria and the Lebanon the restoration of their full sovereign independence. We have liberated the country from the thraldom exercised by the German Armistice Commission at Wiesbaden, and from the dangerous German


intrigues and infiltration which were in progress. The historic interests of France in Syria, and the primacy of those interests over the interests of other European nations, is preserved without prejudice to the rights and sovereignty of the Syrian races.
The conclusion of this brief Syrian campaign reflects credit upon all responsible —upon General Wavell, who was able to spare the Forces first to put down the revolt in Iraq, and afterwards to act in Syria, while at the same time making vigorous head against the German and Italian Army and its strong armoured elements which have for so many months been attempting unsuccessfully to invade the Nile Valley. The actual conduct of the campaign was in the hands of General Sir Maitland Wilson, who, it will be remembered, was the General who extricated our Forces from the very great dangers by which they were encompassed in Greece. He did not tell us much about what was going on in either case, but in both cases his operations constitute an admirable example of military skill. I hope it will soon be possible to give fuller accounts to the public than they have yet received of the Syrian fighting, marked as it was by so many picturesque episodes, such as the arrival of His Majesty's Lifeguards and Royal Horse Guards, and the Essex Yeomanry, in armoured cars, across many hundreds of miles of desert, to surround and capture the oasis of Palmyra. There are many episodes of that kind, of great interest, which I trust may soon be made public.
We are entitled to say that the situation in the Nile Valley has for the time being, at any rate, been considerably improved. If anyone had predicted two months ago, when Iraq was in revolt and our people were hanging on by their eyelids at Habbaniyah, and our Ambassador was imprisoned in his Embassy at Baghdad, and when all Syria and Iraq began to be overrun by German tourists, and were in the hands of forces controlled indirectly but none the less powerfully by German authority—if anyone had predicted that we should already, by the middle of July, have cleaned up the whole of the Levant and have re-established our authority there for the time being, such a prophet would have been considered most imprudent. The heavy and indecisive fighting at Sollum by our desert Army, and the stubborn defence of Crete in

which such heavy losses were inflicted on the enemy's air power, must be judged to have played their part in arriving at the general result.

Mr. Lees-Smith: May I ask the Prime Minister when the Government expect to be able to let us know the terms of the Agreement with regard to Syria?

The Prime Minister: I had hoped to include them in my statement to-day, but they have not yet been released in their final form. There are, I believe, some minor amendments which have been agreed upon, but in substance they are entirely satisfactory to His Majesty's Government.

Sir Irving Albery: I wish to put a Question arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), who is a Member of this House and has gone abroad on duties which are, naturally, important, under the certificate of the right hon. Gentleman. Other right hon. Gentlemen have also gone abroad to other parts of the world in similar circumstances. I desire to ask the Prime Minister whether, when these right hon. Gentlemen return on visits to this country, they are to be considered as completely banished from this House, or whether they will take the opportunity, on such occasions, of making statements from their places here to the House of Commons?

The Prime Minister: They are by no means banished from the House. They have their full rights as Members of Parliament, but those rights are usually exercised in relation to the particular official functions which Members are, from time to time, called upon to discharge.

Sir I. Albery: This matter is one of some importance. Take the case of the right hon. Gentleman who has recently gone out to the East. He may return to this country from time to time. When he returns the House of Commons may desire an opportunity of hearing from him any information which he may be able to give regarding his important function in the East, and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he intends to allow that.

The Prime Minister: He has only just gone out there, and so the case is not


likely to arise for some time, but the Minister of State is a Minister of the Crown, and is therefore just as much entitled to speak on behalf of the Government in this House as any of us here.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."— [Mr. James Stuart.]

NEW MEMBER MAKES AFFIRMATION.

Hector McNeil, Esquire, for the Burgh of Greenock.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Goods and Services (Price Control) Bill, without Amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER in the chair.



Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE, CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS AND WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Measure is brought forward upon exactly the 29th anniversary of the coming into operation of the National Health Insurance scheme. Some parts of our social insurance are very much older than others and stretch back to a century ago. With all their drawbacks, deficiencies, complexities and overlapping, they constitute a body of legislation of which we might, as a nation, well be proud. I do not often attempt to contrast our social insurance system with systems in other lands, but we are at least as comprehensive in this respect as is anybody else. Nevertheless, there are anomalies and inequalities in our system. People with the same need receive different categories of benefit, and some benefits are barred to large masses of people who are insured with mixed societies, which carry a large volume of the sickness of the country. On the other hand, selected groups, who are well provided for, receive State subsidy on the same basis as do the approved societies which carry the large bulk of the invalidity, while additional benefits which are barred to members of the less fortunate groups, for example, to the miners, can be provided by the selected groups who have surpluses because of their healthy membership. There is an evident contrast between the way in which the wife and children of an unemployed worker are treated, and the way in which they are treated if the breadwinner is sick.
These inequalities, complexities and difficulties are now being examined by an Inter-departmental Committee on Social Insurance and Allied Services, under the chairmanship of Sir William Beveridge, and eight Departments are represented on the inquiry. The terms of reference, which have already been given to the

House, provide that the committee is to undertake, with special reference to the inter-relation of the scheme, a survey of the existing national insurance scheme of social insurance and allied services, including workmen's compensation, and is to make recommendations. The Bill must therefore be read against that background. It is only an interim Measure, a stop-gap, designed to meet immediate necessities, but to do so in such a way as will not prejudice whatever conclusions at which this House may arrive after the war emergency is over, regarding the whole future of social insurance. We think the Measure is useful and necessary now. It will bring relief and a measure of happiness to thousands of homes while the committee is laying down the lines for the major Measure, which can be undertaken only when there is time for adequate discussion, free from the stresses and the harassments of war. I take it that there will be general assent in the House on that point.
The explanatory memorandum which accompanies the Bill states three main objects which it is sought to achieve by the Bill. In the first place, we propose an increase of 3s. in the weekly rate of sickness benefit. I trust that hon. Members will know that this is the first increase which has taken place in those benefits for more than 20 years. The benefits were last increased after the last war, and not while the war was in progress. Secondly, for the first time, women receive as large an increase as do men. We do not interfere with what has happened in the past, but the increase now proposed is given to women on the same basis as to men for the first time. Thirdly, the increase in disablement benefit is as big as the increase in sickness benefit. The figures are 40 per cent. for single men, 50 per cent. for single women and 60 per cent. for married women. The Bill provides that there should be a new limit of insurability up to £420 per annum.. The non-manual worker is now insured up to a salary of £250 per annum. but if the Bill receives the approval of Parliament, he will henceforth be insured if his income rises to £420 per annum. We estimate that this increase in insurability will bring in something like 500,000 persons. How many of that number were previously insured and are now earning over £5 a week


it is impossible to say. Large numbers of them would be knocked out of health insurance in from 18 to 24 months' time. Therefore the Government, who have consulted many interests on this matter, agreed that it was imperative, unless grave injustice is to be done to the non-manual worker class that the limit of insurability should be raised to £420. The income limit under the Workmen's Compensation Act is to be similarly raised to £420 from its present level of £350, that is to say, to bring in the £8 a week man.

Mr. Tinker: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why the figure £420 has been chosen?

Mr. Johnston: It is £8 a week. I think it has been generally agreed to be fair and reasonable.

Mr. Tinker: I only wanted to know why.

Mr. Johnston: We must choose some figure. The changes under the Bill will operate from January next year. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health explained in the House why the Bill cannot be brought into operation earlier. There is a vast number of cards to be written up and so on, and it has been found impossible to make the Measure operate before 1st January of next year.
The Measure also provides that there will be an increase of 2d. in the premium. At present the premium is 3s. 6d. for men and 2s. 11d. for women. One penny of the 2d. will be paid by the contributor and one penny by the employer. In the Schedule to the Bill we provide that public assistance authorities, who in the past have been prohibited from taking into account the first 7s. 6d. of national insurance benefit, will henceforth be prohibited from taking into account the first 10s. 6d.

Mr. Messer: Does that apply to workmen's compensation too?

Mr. Johnston: I would like notice of that question. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health in his reply will answer that point. There are one or two other matters still under consideration. There is, for instance, the question of the doctor's capitation fee. That is being increased, but the amount, plus a mileage grant, is at present under

negotiation. These are the main features of this Bill, and so far as the Government are aware, they have met with general assent as making necessary provision for classes and for interests which could not await the conclusions reached by the Beveridge Committee. I take it that the House will not desire any further long explanations. I have stated the essential points of this Measure, but I think I ought not to conclude without saying that in the midst of a world cataclysm in which the democracies are fighting for their very survival, and in which all our institutions of liberty, so painfully built up by many centuries of great effort and sacrifice, are threatened with extinction, it is an indication of the British Government's conviction of ultimate victory that they should ask Parliament to widen and extend our social services. With these words I commend this Measure to the House.

Mr. James Griffiths: I think my hon. Friends in every part of the House will desire me to express our thanks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland for the brief, simple and lucid explanation of the provisions of this Bill. He referred to the very interesting fact that he had the privilege of introducing this Measure to the House on the 29th anniversary of the coming into operation of the National Insurance Act of 1911, and I, like many others of my generation, well remember that date. I remember too that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was responsible, in a rather hostile House, for bringing in that Measure. My right hon. Friend referred to the fact that the scheme of National Health Insurance has its roots very deep in 19th century life. That is true, and I think that very largely accounts, paradoxically as it may seem, for both the strength and the weakness of British social service. It is strong because it has grown up very deeply embedded in our national life, and for that reason it has withstood many storms, whereas in other countries social service systems grafted on from the top have broken down. At the same time that has given it many weaknesses and has created many anomalies which someday will have to be swept away. If to-day we wish a speedy passage of this Measure to the Statute Book, it is not because we regard it as being either a generous or


a comprehensive Measure, and it is against such a background that I wish to make one or two observations on the Bill's provisions.
As to the provisions of the Bill itself, there is first of all the provision by which benefit rates are increased by 3s. I welcome that increase as does every Member of the House; it will bring some measure of relief and increased happiness, and will lessen to some degree the terrible worry and anxiety of many of our people. We welcome, too, the fact that for the first time an increase is made without any sex discrimination at all. The original discrimination is still there, but so far as the increase is concerned, it is an all-round increase. But I think we ought to temper our enthusiasm by the thought that actually and in cold fact this increase of 3s. is not an increase of benefit at all. On the average, it scarcely brings the value of the benefit up to its value in pre-war days, because we have to remember that since 1939, when the war began, there has been a substantial increase in the cost of living, and the 3s. increase does not in every case meet the increase in the cost of living. Frankly, therefore, I do not think we ought to pat ourselves on the back, but rather to temper our congratulations with the thought that we are not actually increasing the real value of the benefits but merely maintaining them at their pre-war value.
However, the Bill is one which we welcome. We know that, in an extension of the social services, a large number of people have to be consulted, and that there has been an agreement between everyone concerned—trade unions, approved societies, the Government—that for the moment this is the amount of increase which every party can be brought to agree upon. There is one increase to which I wish to make specific reference, the most tragic case of all. All of us who are interested in social work and social problems know the problems of unemployment, the problem of insecure old age, and the problem of the invalid, the disabled person. This is the most tragic case of all, the poor person who cannot ascribe his illness to anything specific. There he is with disablement benefit of 7s. 6d. per week. All that we are doing is to raise the benefit of the disabled man

from 7s. 6d. to 10s. 6d. That benefit is trifling. No one would claim, and the Minister would be the last to do so, that any person can live on anything like 10s. 6d. per week. It is really a sad commentary upon our whole social system that at the time when a person is struck down by illness and the need for more money is greater, less comes in, but it is a still further reflection, even, upon our social services that the man who loses his livelihood and is unable to ascribe his illness to a particular cause is worst off of all. These benefits do not, as do the other benefits of the other social services, carry with them payments for dependants.
While we welcome this Bill, it is, as my right hon. Friend put it—he claimed no more for it—a stop-gap. I have intimated my view that the 3s. increase only maintains the pre-war value of the benefits. I want to ask the Government to keep their minds open so that, if the cost of living does increase, there should be some arrangement by which these benefits will at least keep their pre-war value. I ask the Government to keep an open mind on that matter. One other feature, one problem to which my right hon. Friend referred, is a very great problem. It is one of the biggest anomalies, I think it is the biggest anomaly in our social services, and one which we cannot allow to survive for very much longer. If we pass legislation here by which we compel persons to pay an equal amount into a system of social insurance, we have an obligation to see that the same payment gets the same benefit. We cannot avoid that as another of our obligations. We cannot pass that on to the approved societies or blame it on to the instructions of these societies. It is not the approved societies, whether trade unions or friendly societies, who have to face this obligation. A trade union has no power to compel a man to pay, it can only induce him to do so, but even in the old friendly societies, in the old trade unions, for equal payment there was equal benefit. It is only now, under this curious structure, that the anomaly has arisen by which many thousands of men and women in this country, who are paying the same benefit, because of the selective character of the administration of approved societies, are receiving very much less additional benefit than do the others.
This problem is reaching very serious dimensions indeed. It will be added to now, when we are bringing into insurance—and we all welcome it—a very large new class of people. It is true that these people will have to serve a period of what I might term apprenticeship, or probation, before they are entitled to full additional benefits. Unless we do something to alter the structure of this system, however, we shall find persons who have been completely in insurance since 1911 getting less benefits, in three, four or five years, than people coming in to-day, because these people will be able to join the societies which pay these amounts. I do not like to think that we are pushing that off completely until we get this survey. Many societies have been very hard hit—the small societies; I believe there are about 6,000 of them—which, in the depressed areas, have carried a heavy liability because their membership is composed very largely of people with a very high incidence rate of sickness. There are numbers of these societies, and they are very much handicapped as compared with others. Quite frankly, we have two classes of National Health Insurance, and I hope the Government will find is possible, even within the administration of the Act as it was, and will be amended now, if not to abolish the unequal additional benefits paid by societies, at any rate, to even up somewhat these inequalities. I know that there are hon. Members on this side of the House who will speak about this very strongly indeed in the course of this Debate, much more strongly than I have done, and will press upon the Government that this is a problem to which immediate attention should be given, if possible.
Another provision of the Bill, bringing in people up to an income limit of £420 a year, is something we shall all welcome very much indeed. We shall welcome the fact that the scope of the Workmen's Compensation Act is being increased. That will be a great national asset now and in the days to come. It means that we are bringing the main body of the citizens of this country within the scope of our social insurance system for the first time. I look on it as of very great importance—and it is one of the things in which I have always believed in my own trade union and labour life—to bring about closer relationship between what I might term

the black-faced worker and the black-coated worker, bringing them in, altogether. The raising of the income limit will do that. We shall give this Bill its Second Reading and help it on to a speedy passage, not because we think it is generous or comprehensive, but that it is, as my right hon. Friend stated, a stop-gap until the survey is completed. I welcome whole-heartedly the setting-up of this Inter-departmental Committee under the chairmanship of Sir William Beveridge, who has very wide knowledge and experience of this problem.
As for the survey, I hope it will not be left until after the war. This promising of things after the war is beginning to arouse cynical comment. I particularly urge the Government to realise that this is certainly not one of the reforms, or changes, that ought to be left until the end of the war. When the war is over we shall face a colossal problem, such as we have never before faced in this country, the problem of changing over our national life from a war footing and a war economy to a peace footing and a peace economy. It will involve millions of people. Even with everybody making the greatest possible effort, such an enormous transition is bound to be accompanied by difficulties.
We shall not have so much time to build up a peace economy as we have had to build up a war economy. We have built up our Army by calling up the men in classes. Does anyone think that we shall be able to demobilise them by classes, at intervals of three or six months? We have built up our war industry over a period of years. We may have to close it down in a period of months or even of weeks. This will call for the energy and wisdom and statesmanship of everybody. In that period a comprehensive system of social security will be absolutely necessary. We ought to have this system of social security and social insurance completed before the end of the war. It is then that its value will be greatest. Only yesterday I attended a delegate conference of South Wales miners. I and others, including a very distinguished visitor, Admiral Evans of the "Broke," spoke to those men, and appealed to them to produce more coal in this hour of national need. I have spent my life with those men, and for many years I was privileged to preside over their conferences. Something was said by my successor the present President of the


South Wales Miners' Federation about the things which are handicapping production. He said that there were two things holding them back. The workmen were thinking of the past, of what they had suffered in the last 20 years, and the employers were thinking of the future. That is not a bad summing up. I have lived with those men, and I could not blame them for thinking of the past. I could see their unasked question to me: "It is all right for you, but when this emergency is over what will you do with us, throw us back to the gutter?" If we could say to the workers of this country that we are passing a comprehensive measure of social reform, something like that which our kinsmen in New Zealand have passed, that would be something to reassure them.
It is not important how a man or a woman loses his or her livelihood. The important thing is that the livelihood is lost. I hope, therefore, that this survey will be pushed forward and completed as quickly as possible. A committee has been set up, and Sir William Beveridge has been released from other tasks, perhaps more directly connected with the prosecution of the war, in order to do this job. That indicates that the Government regard the matter as being important. Let us seek to build up this comprehensive social insurance system, bringing all sides of it together into one compact, well-designed, well-built system. That will give the workers of this country the security to which they are entitled. Insecurity is the dragon of working-class life, and I hope people will not stand for it after this war. In wishing this Measure a speedy passage to the Statute Book, I do so not because of its merits, not because it is generous—it does scant justice to the most needy and deserving section of the community. I regard it merely as a stop-gap, and I hope we shall have that survey very speedily indeed.

Mr. Graham White: The Secretary of State for Scotland pointed out that this Bill was introduced on the 29th anniversary of the National Health Insurance Bill. He made it quite clear that that anniversary was not being celebrated by the introduction of a Bill which made a very substantial addition to the structure the foundation of which was laid 29 years

ago. I think the best thing we can do is to pass the Bill into law as speedily as possible. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) that it would be unfortunate if people were led to think that this House regarded the Bill as an adequate Measure. It is not. It calls attention to the inadequacies of the benefits now being paid. Its provisions are overdue. It is characteristic of the long series of Measures by which we have added to the original structure of social insurance. 
It would not be accurate to say that, in connection with social insurance, that we have advanced by leaps and bounds. Somebody has said that we have advanced one step at a time. I think a more accurate description would be to say that we have advanced by fits and starts, whenever some social stress has moved the Legislature or some economic necessity has stirred the Government into activity. It is clear that this Bill must be regarded as a stop-gap, a minor step. There are few things which can be said in this House without contradiction from some quarter, but I do not think that any Member will rise and defend 18s. a week as an adequate sum in sickness benefit for a man with household responsibilities. My right hon. Friend is as aware of these matters as any Member of the House, but no one would rise in his place and make these contentions and defend these proposals. If he did, I believe I am safe in saying that he would receive scant attention and no encouragement from this House. Let the bill be passed as soon as may be, and let us concentrate upon the wider proposals, which, we hope, will follow upon the deliberations of the Beveridge Committee. It is some satisfaction to those of us who have been raising our voices about this matter for many years past to think that at last something is being done to coordinate the haphazard and piecemeal service of social insurances in this country.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said that he did not propose to compare our system with that of other countries. I am prepared to say that to-day our system is, on the whole, as good as, if not better than, any other system. There are many marvellous things about our system. One is that it works at all, having regard to the way in which it has been put together, and


especially having regard to the fact that there is no common measure of need for the payments made for groups of people for precisely the same purpose. It is a marvellous thing that Parliament and the House of Commons and the people of this country should have tolerated such a tissue of anomalies for so long. When the Inter-Departmental Committee meets it has to have eight different Departments represented in it, and for all these years there has been no single individual or body charged with making a continuous survey of the workings of the system as a whole. Is it not perhaps surprising that it works? I sometimes wonder whether it works because we have such a magnificent and able Civil Service in this country, or whether, on the other hand, our Civil Service is not as capable as it is because of the enormous skill and energy which it has to develop in connection with the administration of these extraordinarily complex and anomalous conditions of our social services. But there it is; we are hoping that there is to be a comprehensive scheme. I hope that, if proposals are not brought to the Statute Book during the war, at least we may have the Measure indicated in outline before the end of the war, as in the case of the Fisher Education Bill, during the last war.
My hon. Friend raised a matter of the very greatest consequence Just now when he said that many people were beginning to look with rather a cynical eye upon proposals which were made and promises which had. not been forthcoming. Not only in this country is attention being given to this matter. Dr. Ley, the German propagandist, has just finished 15 articles in the "Angriff," dealing with the social services of this country. In his last article he said that social services in this country did not exist, and he went on to accuse the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour of building up a whole series of promises to people after the war which we had no intention whatever of carrying out. These are matters of consequence in a very wide field, and it is of great importance that, when we make an increase in unemployment benefit and in National Health Insurance benefit, and when we improve our pensions system by supplementary pensions, we should do our utmost to get these solid facts which are not promises, over by

the Ministry of Propaganda, if we have such a body, who should in this effective way answer these charges.
If I may address a word to Sir William Beveridge's Committee, I would say that it is of the utmost consequence, and will possibly be a very live issue in the later stages of this war, to make it clear that in a democracy such as ours the citizens should have as great a system of security as that of any other country or an even better system. There is no more effective propaganda on the Continent or anywhere else than a system which offers security to the people. What use is being made of that propaganda? May I put forward a word with regard to the work of that Committee? There are three things to which it should devote a considerable amount of its time and attention. One is that it should recommend the establishment of some authority to make a continuous survey of the development and working of the social services as a whole, so that, if anomalies exist, they may be brought to light and dealt with in the order of their importance. The second item to which they should pay attention is that every worker who is put out of work by illness, injury or lack of employment should be restored to health, fitness and work as soon as possible, and during that process of restoration his family should not be in want. The same standards of need should apply to all payments made for the same purpose, regardless of the origin of the disability. This is an important task, and if the Committee proceed on these lines they will be able to recommend a series of measures which will lead to the establishment of a basic minimum of subsistence for every citizen as a right in a democratic State. We should pass this Bill as speedily as may be, but I am bound to say that if it had been brought forward as a solution of the many outstanding problems awaiting solution in connection with Health Insurance I would have been obliged to advise my friends to vote against it.

Mr. Hewlett: My experience of speaking in this House for the first time rather reminds me of the boy who said he liked having toothache, because it was so nice when it was over. I have the honour to represent one of the largest industrial Divisions in this country, the Exchange Division of the


City of Manchester, formerly known as the North-West Division of Manchester, which has been represented by some famous Parliamentarians, and I have, therefore, a great duty in front of me to try in some small measure to emulate the examples of those famous men.
I listened with rapt attention to the Minister and was delighted to hear that this Bill is only a stop-gap, because it is most essential that we should have a complete and comprehensive survey of our social services. As has been said by previous speakers, I think it is preposterous that the man who is sick is entitled to 18s. a week, whereas the man who is unemployed is entitled to 20s. a week. This glaring example becomes more definite when we take the case of a married man with four dependent children. According to my calculations, if he is unemployed, he is entitled to 42s. a week, but if he is sick, he is still only entitled to 18s. a week. How can a man live on 18s. a week, or even exist on this sum, particularly when he suffers the disability of being sick? Previous speakers have indicated that they are pleased that this is simply a stop-gap Measure and that we shall be favoured—I hope in the near future—with a complete and comprehensive survey of our social services with more equality of treatment and of benefit.
There are only two points I would like to make, and the first is that I think £420 is rather on the high side, for this reason. In the majority of cases the people who are in receipt of £420 a year will, I think, prefer to go to doctors as private patients rather than as panel patients. Similarly, I feel that there will be a disability to doctors in industrial areas by raising the figure from £250 to £420 a year, inasmuch as few people in the really industrial areas earn more than £420 a year. Therefore doctors in those areas will lose a good number of private patients and be recompensed by a similar number of panel patients, but this will not apply in the same degree in the residential areas where we have a larger percentage of people in receipt of more than £420 per annum.
The other point I want to bring forward for the attention of the Minister is this: As an industrialist and as an employer of labour, I venture to say that

the vast majority of workers are prepared to give a good day's work for a good day's pay, but we have what is known as malingerers and those who will make the slightest excuse for not working. I agree, and I state very definitely, that this percentage is very small, but we have to legislate for this percentage just as we have to legislate for Income Tax dodgers and persons of that type. We employers of labour have come to the conclusion that a doctor's certificate for a man who is not too keen on working is not of the value it should be, because this type of person is in the position to use gentlemanly blackmail on the conscientious doctor. If the doctor feels that he is ready for work or should not have a continuance of the certificate, the man makes threats in a veiled manner to the doctor, indicating that he will transfer his patronage to a doctor who would be more generous or sympathetic towards him. These particular points want watching, because we are all anxious that we should have fair play and honest treatment from the workers and employers and, similarly, from the doctors.
The most strict inquiry should be made where any individual is anxious to transfer from one doctor to another unless he is removing from one area to another. A most glaring example was brought to my notice. A young man who was anxious to change his employment brought very great pressure to bear on the assistant to two doctors who were in partnership and eventually received a certificate from this doctor which stated that this man was suffering from defective pulmonary ventilation. When he was later examined it was found that he had no vestige of this disease. The only thing found out about this young man was that he occasionally gave a sigh. This sort of thing shows that a stricter inquiry should be made if an insured person wishes to change his doctor for any reason except that he wishes to move to another district. I thank the House for having listened with patience to the few words I had to say, and it is with great pleasure that I support this Bill.

Mr. Buchanan: In rising to say a few words on this Bill, my first duty is to congratulate the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Manchester (Mr. Hewlett) on his maiden speech to-day. He cannot expect me to


agree with him, but I congratulate him on coming to this House and at least having the courage to state his point of view. I am certain that experience will teach him to modify many of his views, and I hope that the future will make him see the error of his ways. However, as I have said, I congratulate him on his speech, more especially "because it was on a subject which has some human interest and needs some human attention.
The hon. Member has said something about medical certificates. I know something, too, about working folk, and I believe that a man who goes to a doctor to get a certificate which will entitle him to 18s. a week sick pay, when he can get so very much more at work, needs to be examined for something other than the reason for which he goes to the doctor. With regard to the medical profession, as a result of nine years of experience as chairman of a trade union which runs a friendly society and pays sick benefits running into a fairly large amount, I want to say that, generally speaking, we have found that the doctors have carried out their duties in a fairly conscientious fashion. My hon. Friend produced one isolated example, but I could produce other examples of another sort, where possibly the doctors have been too severe. Therefore, I think we may take it that, on the whole, the doctors have carried out their duties fairly well. I notice that the representatives of the Scottish Office have now left the Front Bench; apparently they had not time to spare to wait for me to speak.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): I am sure the hon. Member will realise that we have to divide up our time, and equally I am sure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will return when he hears that the hon. Member is speaking.

Mr. Buchanan: I want to raise a point which has some significance for Scotland. In opening the Second Reading Debate, the right hon. Gentleman was careful to point out that the Bill raised the disablement exemption under the Poor Law from 7s. 6d. to 10s. 6d. I would remind him that in the past there has been great agitation on this matter. For at least 15 years, 7s. 6d. was exempted under the National Health Insurance Act, but what happened—and

this applied in London and Glasgow, two of the biggest cities of the country—was that, although this was the law in respect of National Health Insurance, the Poor Law authorities never accepted that provision, either in London or in Glasgow. The Poor Law authorities claimed that the exemption, although given in regard to National Health Insurance, did not bind them. This situation was not remedied for many years, but ultimately an Amendment was passed by the House which extended the National Health Insurance provision to the Poor Law and made it quite definite that under the Poor Law the 7s. 6d. was exempted. At the present time, the provision under the Poor Law Act is for the exemption of 7s. 6d., and frankly, I am afraid that, unless the Poor Law Act is also amended, the provision concerning 10s. 6d. will not be applicable. I remember a much greater man that I am pleading in the House for the 7s. 6d. to be exempted under the Poor Law, but although the National Health Insurance Act said that it was to be, the Poor Law authorities would not operate the provision because the Poor Law Act did not say so. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make sure, between now and the Committee stage, that the provision concerning 10s. 6d. will be applied, and to tell us what steps he will take, if necessary, with regard to any authority that does not extend the new provision.
I want now to say a few words about a matter which was raised by ray hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths)—-the question of approved societies and different benefits. My hon. Friend has quite properly raised the whole question of the wide range of difference between the benefits. I agree with him that the raising of the limit to £420 will extend the differentiation. In raising the limit to that amount, we cover a section of the population in which there is, in the main, less sickness than in the poorer-paid section of the community. Everybody knows that poverty has a relation to sickness; that insecurity, low wages and bad housing, things which are usually akin to poverty, make for sickness. In the £420 class of the community, insecurity is not so frequent, and standards of food, clothing and shelter are generally higher, with the consequence that there is not so much sickness.
What will happen? These people are to be allowed to enter what may be called the privileged approved society. They will not enter the average collecting society which pays only the minimum benefits. They will be the centre of attraction for the good society, for the society which can offer inducements in the form of higher rates of benefit, and the result will be that those societies which are now offering higher rates of benefit will get more of the better type of members than ever before, and thus will be able to offer still higher benefits. So the process will go on. I want here to congratulate the trade union movement on the fact that the trade union approved societies, in spite of all their difficulties, have constantly taken the view that this differentiation between man and man and woman and woman is something that ought not to be tolerated any longer. The defence has sometimes been made that some of the societies which paid extra benefits were in some way better managed. But take the Prudential Company. Some of us may have made very serious criticisms of them, but no one will say that they are not managed in a first-class manner. Some of the vast collecting societies are unable to pay a penny extra in benefit, but no one will say that they are not extremely well managed. Within the trade union movement there is a difference between the rates of benefit paid by the moulders' approved society and those paid by my own society, that of the pattern makers, which is able to pay extra benefit. Because of the nature of the moulders' work, sickness is on a much higher rate among the moulders. My view is that the time has come when the differentiation ought to be swept aside, and there ought to be equality of treatment.
But there is a much more serious problem than that. It is serious enough for a person to be in a friendly society which is able to pay only the statutory benefit, whereas others are able to pay more, but it is much worse not to be able to get into a friendly society at all. There are numbers of people who cannot get into a friendly society. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that, at the present time, there are societies which, although they have not passed a formal rule to that effect,

have decided by their administration not to accept married women as members. That is happening at the present time. There are to-day poor people who have been unemployed for years, or partly sick for years, and who are now securing employment, and no friendly society will accept them as members. No collecting society will take them and no approved society will take them. It is a shocking thing that on the other side other people who can get into an approved society are guaranteed at least the State benefit, and possibly extra benefit.
I have written to the Secretary of State for Scotland about the case of a man who had been discharged from the Forces, and the only consolation I received was that he could try the Army and Navy Fund, where he might be accepted but where there was no power to compel them to do so. I think this system is shocking. Would anyone tolerate it in unemployment insurance? Would this House of Commons tolerate such a position in unemployment insurance, namely, putting miners and shipbuilders in a different category to their fellow workers? And yet here we say to a man or woman: "You cannot enter here; you are rejected and you shall not be allowed to become a member of an approved society." That is a shocking and indefensible position. I admit that the Minister of Health has his problems in connection with rates of benefit, but surely it could be provided that wherever a person is rejected from an approved society he shall have the right of appeal to the Minister. He ought to have some right of appeal against the decision of an approved society, and the Minister ought to have some right of recommending him to become a member of an approved society. In my view the present position is terrible and calls for redress.
May I say one word about benefits? I am not satisfied in this respect, and I want to make an appeal. It does not even do contributory justice to one section in particular, namely, to women. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was Minister of Health, introduced a Bill which made a serious attack on the standards of benefit for women. The defence for that Measure was the deplorable state of the funds of certain approved societies owing to bad trade. It was an economy measure, and if hon. Members look up the


Debate, they will see the Minister of Health stated that when good times returned he hoped it would be in his power to put the benefits back where they were. Women are not receiving the 3s. increase, and their position is only being partly restored to where it was before they suffered the reduction. The women are entitled at least to have refunded the amount they lost as the result of that economy Bill some years ago.
I should like now to say a word about this comprehensive scheme. I am a little suspicious about comprehensive schemes. I have had a long experience in this House, and my experience has shown that if I get a big comprehensive scheme, I get nothing, because there are so many people involved that by the time it is introduced those who asked for it are all dead. I know it is a fine phrase; it is like planning, getting down to fundamentals, and building brick by brick. They are all fine phrases and catchwords. But what does it mean? It means that to get all these things remedied you have to have a vast committee inquiring here and inquiring there, and there has to be an examination of approved societies, trade unions and employers. While all this is going on I have to wait. I know I can knock holes in National Health Insurance, but the fact remains that I too want something done, and I do not want to wait over long. I do not see the need for making comprehensive inquiries, because the civil servants have all the facts they need. All that is required is a practical approach to the problem by ordinary civil servants.
I welcome the Bill inasmuch as it gives men 3s. a week. I would have welcomed it much more if some account had been taken of the family of a man and some scheme of family allowances had been linked with it. Be that as it may, the Measure shows some improvement on the past, and, as hon. Members have said, no one will vote against the Bill. The Bill will be passed unanimously, but I hope at an early date we shall do two things in connection with National Health Insurance. Firstly, I hope we shall abolish the differentiation between men and "women and the differentiation between friendly society and friendly society, and. secondly, that we shall place no impediment in the way of a poor person becoming a member of an approved society and thereby debarred from common benefits to which his fellows are eligible.

Sir Joseph Lamb: I want, in the very short time during which I shall occupy the House, to welcome this Bill, but in doing so I welcome it with qualified feelings. While I welcome the Measure as an improvement, I regret very much that we have not a more comprehensive Bill. I use the word "comprehensive"with a certain amount of diffidence after the classification given to it by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). I think we must have an ideal. The hon. Member for Gorbals contradicted himself in his speech He said he was afraid of comprehensive schemes, and yet he maintained that we had all the materials for a comprehensive Bill, in which I agree with him. The reason why my welcome is qualified is that I am afraid this Bill may delay the more comprehensive Bill which I, for a long time, have advocated—the comprehensive means of giving a measure of security to everyone. I agree with what was said by the hon. Member who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench. I think it is very advisable to put off this larger scheme, because if there is a time when it is likely to be required more even than now, it will be after the war. We shall have very big problems of unemployment and other difficulties, and I believe nothing will give greater security to the vast majority of people than to have a Bill which is really comprehensive. I believe there is no other country in the world which has the same amount of social security that we have, but that does not say that we must be satisfied with what we have. We must always keep these great ideals before us. Consequently I think it would be very much wiser if the Minister were to look upon this as an interim Measure, the forerunner of something on a much larger scale.
We have benefits for sickness, disablement, unemployment, widows and old age, all of them conditions which add to the life of the individual a certain amount of anxiety. I do not know that work has ever killed anyone. It is worry that has killed most people. If you removed from the lives of people that dread of insecurity in the future, you would add very much to their life and happiness. I should like to see, instead of this Measure, a comprehensive Bill; contributory and national, embracing all these various services. I should like to see contributions


start either at birth or on first entering into employment. I should like to see a scheme embracing all the social benefits and all individuals. If a man is fortunate enough to be a millionaire and can put up with the inconveniences that that position now brings with it in some cases, he should also be wealthy enough to contribute to the scheme. He has no need to draw the benefits, but I would make it a national obligation to contribute. I believe it should take in every individual, because the larger the scheme the greater security there will be. As our social services improve, the good lives must of necessity be in the majority, and all societies benefit by the good lives. I would not allow a good life to remain out. They should all come in.
This Bill is not what I should desire, but it is something that I appreciate. It is an improvement on what we have at present. I am rather disturbed by the scanty attendance on a Measure of this magnitude. I hope the Minister will not be disheartened by it. I have never seen the House so full as when there is something to object to, so I hope we can take it from the fact that there are so few present that there is total agreement among all parties that the Measure should receive a quick and successful passage.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: I sympathise whole-heartedly with the hon. Member's disappointment at the inadequacy of the Bill. I find it rather difficult to express my sensations, but I feel a sense of frustration. During the time I have been in the House I have heard successive Ministers of Health asked time after time, month after month, week after week, to revise the national health provisions. I have asked Questions and have received so many evasive replies that I cannot remember how many. During some weeks there have been two or three Questions from different Members asking for some Regulations to be made. At long last we were promised a Bill, and last week we were given this miserable little Measure, which only tinkers with one of the most important matters the Government have to deal with. The Secretary of State for Scotland, in presenting it, made a speech which was in fact an apologia. I have sat patiently listening to my men colleagues accepting that apologia and saying that it is something

and that something more will come. But we have waited 20 years. Is the House to be sidetracked once more? The House of Commons, I understand, is a democratic Assembly where the minority and the majority have a right to be heard. We have pleaded, we have agitated, we have cajoled, we have coerced, we have done everything possible to get the Minister of Health to introduce a scheme, and this thing is what we are given. It is another small addition to the hotch-potch of legislation which has been presented by successive Ministers of Health.
Of course, we shall accept this Bill. Would not a starving man accept any crumb? We are dealing with the sick, the unorganised, the helpless and the in articulate. Are they going to say, "We shall not accept 3s. a week?" Of course not. They have suffered for 20 years. The women had their benefits reduced some years ago. The Minister, in his generosity, tells us he is going to make this miserable addition to the existing rates. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) asked, "How can a man live on 10s. 6d. a week?" I ask, "How can the spinster or the widow, living alone, perhaps with an acidulated landlady, live on 15s. a week when she is sick and perhaps bedridden? "This addition to the rates of benefit is ridiculously small and inadequate. I have had it said to me on scores of occasions," Doctor, I cannot afford to be ill. "Although the hon. Member who made his maiden speech talked about withholding certificates, and so on, I know that there may be a minority of people who are naturally idlers. We get in all classes of society, and not only among the workers, those who do not like work and go to the doctor and try and get a certificate. I know also that in our factories and industries there are a number of people who should not be working but who are forced to work because of these inadequate rates.
I was impressed, of course, when the Minister of Health told the House last week that at last he was going to produce the new scale, and I thought that he was looking at me when he said," This is the first time that women have been treated equally with men. "It must be a red-letter day when a bedridden woman is given 3s. equally with a bed-ridden man. I want to ask the Minister whether he has examined the record of this Government


as regards the payment of women. Does he not know that the record of every Department, from the A.R.P. service to the Women's Auxiliary services, is a black record in regard to the payment of women during the war? I cannot believe that the Minister would have the gracelessness to suggest that the increased cost of living for a sick woman is less than that for a sick man. Let us examine the Bill carefully. I wonder that the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Health dare mention the fact that women are being treated equally, because one of the most glaring defects in this Bill is the treatment of women. I am not talking about the benefits or of the wives of men who are sick. I am talking about the wives of all the men who are earning up to £420 a year. The hon. Member for Llanelly said, "We must welcome this Bill because for the first time we have this large section of workers being provided for and their health cared for.'' Has the Minister realised, however, that the wives of all the workers, the women who to-day are queueing and struggling with rations, doing the work of the house and looking after evacuees, have no health provision at all? Yet the Minister has the effrontery to say that women are being treated equally with men.
I am not surprised that last week the herbalists came to the House in force. They are very anxious to have their particular preserves ensured because these housewives who have no health provision represent untold wealth for the herbalists. I am not discriminating between herbalist and herbalist; I only say that for this vast number of women who have been ignored there is no health provision unless they leave home and go out to a job. I am not exaggerating when I say that these women often have to get the cheapest kind of medical advice and they will buy any concoction that is advertised. Investigation after investigation has proved that the out-patient departments of our hospitals are full of those women who have not had proper provision made for their health. I ask the Minister not to come to the House and tell us after all these years waiting that something else is coming. The Medical Planning Commission, consisting of 70 people, is sitting now. Is the Minister going to wait for that Commission to report before he gives us a comprehensive scheme? Will he say

that we must wait many years before these people have adequate provision?
With regard to the question of machinery, I do not want to add very much, but it is a question which I understand very well. This Bill is to be administered by the approved societies. We find the most curious anomalies. We find, perhaps, in Lancashire a cotton operative unable to obtain dental treatment because his approved society has run out of dental benefit; or a clerk, attached to another approved society, who needs glasses cannot get them because his approved society has run out of ophthalmic benefit. We are to have exactly the same inequalities as existed before this Bill. We are to have inequalities not only between the sexes, but between trades and even between geographical areas. I realise that the Minister has devoted a good deal of his life to a different kind of work, and I want him to look at the whole field, to think of what is happening in the country, how certain services are administered by the county authorities, certain services by the borough councils, a number by ad hoc boards, a number by insurance committees and a number by insurance doctors. When we come to the health of the children, that is taken out of the hands of the Ministry of Health and administered by the Board of Education. I wish that a new Minister of Health would come along and realise that the health services of the country are in a chaotic condition. We have so often had a Minister come to the House and give us a little bit of jam and say, "Be quiet for a few more years; the millenium is coming." We are now becoming impatient. We want something more. Sometimes I sigh for another change, because I realise that the Minister of Health, if he only knew it, has more power to increase the health and happiness of the people than any other Minister in the Government.

Mr. Collindridge: While my criticisms of the Bill will not be as acute as those of the hon. Member for West Fulham (Dr.Summerskill), I think that the House must feel that her profession outside the House gives her a knowledge of circumstances which not all of us have got. On that account we must pay attention to some of the things that she has said. In the district from which I come


there is some appreciation of the three points that are embodied in the Bill, but I cannot say that there is the fullest satisfaction that those points will meet all the problems of National Health Insurance which concern our people. Coming from an industrial district where so many people have to receive health insurance benefit, I am sure that the increase of pay, while small, will be appreciated. I am sure that the extension of insurance to cover individuals with higher incomes will be generally welcome throughout the country. That and the bringing of people with higher incomes into workmen's compensation are good points.
But with all the benefits embodied in the Bill the betterment is not great in view of the times in which we live. A very great many people will still have to be assisted privately or from public funds, and although the burden affects the individual in the first instance, it is also heavily felt by the community. In the town from which I come there is a high public assistance rate by reason of our having to assist people who, when they are sick, receive only health insurance benefit. The rates of the town have been affected and this, together with the lowered purchasing power of the people, gravely affects the trading community. In my own district, where heavy industries and mining are carried on, people are more likely to need health insurance benefits by reason of the nature of their occupation. I was a miner for many years before coming to this House. In the last few years before coming here I was a sedentary worker, a check weigher. Like many of my comrades when I was working at the coal face and ill-health befell us because of the nature of our work, we were compulsorily out of work; but sedentary workers, because their duties are not so arduous, are not so frequently absent from work. We ought to have a more comprehensive scheme of health insurance to balance better the differing requirements of individuals and of districts.
Very often when a person who has been out of insurance gets back into work there is a reluctance on the part of some societies to accept him into membership again, and he is in that way deprived of some of the benefits which he requires. We ought to move along the lines of

securing greater equality of benefits, and I believe the people will feel more hope from the promise that a full measure of health insurance is to come than gratification over the meagre benefits which are conferred by this Measure. Though it may be pleaded that there are difficulties in the way of bringing into force a more comprehensive scheme of health insurance for all people, I feel certain that if we took a plebiscite of the people, whether they are at present within health insurance or not, there would be agreement on the necessity for equality of treatment for all who experience foul fate in the shape of illness. In one district on the same day you may have one person falling ill and another meeting with an accident which entitles him to workmen's compensation. Neither of them can help what has happened to him, and yet their treatment is very dissimilar. The other day I heard of a case in my division in which a contributor to health insurance is troubled with that awful complaint diabetes and has succeeded in getting insulin treatment from which he is deriving great benefit. The wife of an insured contributor living nearby also suffers from the same disease but has failed to get insulin treatment through national insurance, and is unable to pay for it herself, and she is therefore left to suffer at least discomfort and to face, perhaps, the likelihood of an earlier death than the insured contributor. We certainly ought to face the question of securing health insurance benefits for all the members of a contributor's family and not for the contributor only. Knowing how acute this question is in our industrial areas I urge that we should have a balancing-up of treatment, cash benefits and other things for those who are similar payees, because it is the height of absurdity that an underground miner who is an insured person and whose eyes have been affected by nystagmus should in some cases be unable to get the requisite optical treatment owing to the fact that, unfortunately, the society to which he belongs is not well enough off to afford him that benefit.

Mr. Tinker: I should like the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Health to explain several things in the Bill. The first Sub-section on page 2 of the Bill gives the Minister power to revoke any scheme under


Section 56 of the Insurance Act. It is so long since the Act was passed that it would be well if that matter were cleared up. Clause 5 is entitled "Increased provision for reserve values." I should be glad to have an explanation of that. There is a point in the First Schedule on which I am not clear. It is stated:
Provided that, until one hundred and four weeks have elapsed since the entry of an insured person into insurance and one hundred and four weekly contributions have been paid by or in respect of that person, the rate of sickness benefit to which that person shall be entitled shall be, in the case of a man, twelve shillings a week, and, in the case of a woman, ten shillings and sixpence a week.
When do they get the first benefit? Is it after they pay one contribution, or have they to pay a number of contributions? I realise that they have to pay 104 contributions before they get the full benefit of the Bill. At the bottom of page ii of the explanatory memorandum it states:
The new class of pensioners will, like the existing class, be entitled in certain circumstances to supplementary pensions from the Assistance Board, and there will consequently be a further liability on the Exchequer which it is not possible to estimate.
I assume that that means that these people who are now embraced by this extension of National Health Insurance will be entitled to the same kind of benefit under the supplementary scheme as under the old one. Many people will read what we are doing and they will have certain doubts about what it means. An explanation from a Minister is always very widely read outside. People do not take very much notice of what a back bencher may say but a Minister's explanation is always followed as a reliable guide.
We recognise that the Minister has carried out to the full the pledge that he gave us in May. That pledge did not meet what my hon. Friends and myself desired to have, but what he said is, in the main, carried out in the Bill. Naturally, it does not satisfy us, and we are now taking the opportunity to impress upon the Minister some of the points which we hope will be dealt with by the proposed new legislation. I want to draw the attention of the House to one phrase at the end of the Bill, which is all that I desire to see carried out. It is stated:

This Act may be cited as the National Health Insurance, Contributory Pensions and Workmen's Compensation Act, 1941." 
I have always understood "National Health Insurance "to mean that everybody should be treated alike, and I cannot understand that term being used unless it has that meaning. In this Measure we call upon everybody to pay equal contributions, but, under the present scheme, people in some difficult occupation or one that is really dangerous do not get the same benefit as other people. That anomaly has been going on for over 20 years. When the first Bill was brought in I imagine the idea was used that if you gave certain societies the government of their own finances, they would be more careful to watch over those finances and would, in that way, enhance the benefit to their members. Anybody who examines the position now will see that that was not the right way to look at the matter.
I belong to the mining profession. A week ago I saw the secretary to an insurance society to find out what was happening there, and he gave me some rather startling figures. Everybody knows that mining is a difficult occupation. Men fall sick more often in that occupation than in any other. The men concerned pay the same contribution as others, but they are on the minimum benefits. A statement was made to me by that society, and I bring it forward for the benefit of the House and of the committee which has been set up. It will let them know why we agitate for an all-in comprehensive scheme. It states that sickness benefit is at present 15s. a week. That is the minimum. Disablement benefit is 7s. 6d. That is both the minimum and the maximum in this society. The above benefits are statutory. There is not a single additional benefit available to the members of this society, and the society Has difficulty in continuing to exist, owing to the very unfavourable sickness experience of the members resulting from the strenuous and exacting nature of their employment. Contributions are at the same rate as for ordinary insured persons, but in other societies, owing to the light sickness benefit, those contributions provide dental treatment, dentures, optical treatment, medical and surgical appliances, and many other additional benefits. Not one of those benefits can be given to the members of this miners' society. The result is that the


society has, in recent years, fallen in membership from 17,000 to 11,000. If that decline continues, the society will go out of existence altogether.
It is difficult to understand why, in any National Health Insurance scheme, that sort of thing should obtain. On examination, I think the first insurance scheme was brought in without any such inequality in mind. My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) will no doubt speak in this Debate. I hope he knows my point of view. He belongs to a distributive society which pays its members a very high rate of benefit as well as giving them additional benefits. I know he will agree that that is not because the society is run any more efficiently than the miners' society is run. Both societies are doing their best. The difference is merely because the members of the society belonging to my hon. Friend are not liable to the same rate of sickness, arising out of their work. I do not think the members of any society would object to a pooling arrangement, any money which is paid being put into a common pool so that everybody could get equal benefits from it. I hope that the Beveridge Committee has that point in mind. There are more than 800 societies, and they have much money accumulated, but they ought not to take that fact as a credit to the work of their society. If they were to operate in mining or factory areas, or in the shipping industry, they might be as badly off as the societies are in those areas. I want them to take a broad view of National Health Insurance. Let this scheme be comprehensive and let everybody be embraced by it.
One of my hon. Friends said that he did not want to wait until the termination of the war. I have already prophesied in this House that the war will be all over by the end of January. I want the Beveridge Committee to be ready to say to the people, "We have all helped to win this war, and everybody has thrown his effort into the common lot. This insurance scheme brings everybody into the same rate of benefit." I am prepared to wait for it, but I have never adopted an attitude of throwing anything over. I take what I can by the way, and I am pressing on. Although I am not fully satisfied with what is happening, I shall not oppose the Second Read-

ing. I ask the Minister to hurry the Beveridge Committee on, so that everybody can share equally in the benefits of National Health Insurance.

Mr. David Adams: I can not subscribe to the strictures that have been passed to-day on this particular Measure. As far as I recollect, the pledges given by the Government were detailed, but here in this Measure they are fully honoured, and for that reason, while the criticisms that have been expressed regarding the items which are not included in the Measure have their value, inasmuch as they can serve to advise the Beveridge Committee as to what the feelings of the House are, they are, after all, slightly irrelevant to the present de liberations. I am glad to notice, how ever, the equality of increase as between men and women. Why has this equality been decided upon? Because the Government recognise that there is an equality of need. If they admit that, why do they not equalise the total benefits for sickness and disablement allowances between men and women. In that particular they are acting quite illogically, and although they are on the surface endeavouring to be somewhat repentant, they are retaining a serious disqualification which we hoped to see eliminated.
The hope has been expressed that we might have had in the Measure some statement, or the beginnings of a change, in the direction of family allowances. One could scarcely anticipate that this could be the case at this stage, but we must be certain that an adequate system of insurance, designed to treat all classes and individuals in the State alike, must be in some measure associated with family allowances. I am gratified that the income limit has been raised. That is a very just and a very essential departure. From my experience there is no question that the lack of it has inflicted considerable hardship upon non-manual workers and their families, and we should be glad to know, if the Minister can tell us, how many persons are affected by this change. We notice that the doctors are permitted to increase their charges from 13s. to 14s. 6d. I have no doubt that this is based upon actuarial figures and present-day necessities, and none of us can object to it. Personally, I have had experience as a vice-chairman of a National Health Insurance


Committee, and I am glad to testify to the amazingly few cases in which the medical profession have shown any dereliction of duty towards their patients, and I believe that the general spirit in the medical profession is now to recognise these responsibilities perhaps to a greater degree than has been the case in the past.
We are promised, if I may digress a little, a new and comprehensive Measure after the survey which is now in progress is completed, but after the war. I hope the Minister will give us some sort of time-limit as to the introduction of the Measure after the war, or after a certain period of time. No one knows, except the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), when the war is likely to end. Certainly none of the belligerents seem to have the information which he happily possesses; but suppose the war continues for some years, are we to wait for this comprehensive Measure, the benefits of which are urgently desired, for that period of time? I hope the Minister will be able to give us some assurance in that direction. In such a comprehensive Measure there ought, of course, to be equality of benefits for all members of the community, which, of course, we know is not obtainable today. There are certain societies which are unable to give the benefits which others give, with the result that the would-be recipient goes to the local authority.
The local authority with which I am associated is to-day, owing to the failure of the approved societies, supplying spectacles and dentures, and making up for deficiencies, in addition to those very large financial contributions which we are called upon to make in order to make up the amounts requisite for those who are receiving relatively elementary benefits at the present time. It is interesting to note that our latest Ally makes no discrimination with regard to any individual in the State in the matter of benefits, which are of a more universal character than anywhere else among the great nations of the world. That women should be placed in an inferior position to men would be quite unthinkable in that State. Perhaps, therefore, our new association will enable us, in the matter of our health insurance, to follow on the lines which they laid down away back in the year 1920, when their first insurance schemes were introduced. These schemes begin from the age

of 16 and provide against any form of disability, for all sections of the community. I am grateful for the present Measure. It will be beneficial, and we welcome it. We regret its limitations, but we look forward with resolution and determination, as well as aspiration, to the new Measure, which we hope will fulfil all the desires and ambitions of those who have spoken to-day.

Dr. Morgan: I have had personal experience of National Health Insurance practice, and I hope the House will bear with me when I ask the Minister to try to have a more humane administration of medical services from the Ministry of Health. I wish to stress the question of the equality of benefits which has been raised, and the unfair discrimination between the sexes, between married women and unmarried women, and the differentiation between one person in one society and another person in another, with the anomaly that the insured person loses additional benefits if he transfers voluntarily from one society to another — although I know that no transfers are allowed during the war. This is, I know, an agreed Measure, and we welcome, of course, the changes incorporated in the Bill, but I hope the House will allow me to say just a few things about National Health Insurance. "National," is not the proper word to apply at all; it is elementary health insurance. The medical service scheme is on the lines of elementary education, with secondary education and university education left out. Numerous anomalies have crept in. The approved society system is wrong, it is rotten, though I welcome the comprehensive survey being made, because it will bring pensions and workmen's compensation and health insurance into one scheme, let us hope, instead of this very complicated present system. The approved society system was one of the blots on the original Act, and vested interests have been allowed to creep into National Health Insurance, which unfortunately, I fear, will take a great deal of eradication even in peace-time. There will be a tremendous fight, sometimes even from the trade unions, approved societies and those in democratic circles, for approved societies as such, even though it is recognised that many approved societies exploit National Health Insurance as a subsidiary for other purposes in connection with insurance.


The part I wish to deal with is the medical service. It is unfortunate that there is only a general practitioner system, that there is no hospital arrangement, no arrangements or facilities really for investigation, pathological and biological. The poor general practitioner, working under the most difficult conditions in the world in an environment in which there are disease, bad housing, dietetic ignorance, is put there, and told to sift these cases, and he is given no opportunity of having proper facilities for diagnosis. I was one of those who, after the last war, went, by choice, not from necessity, into National Health Insurance, against all the advice of my professor. I said I thought I could serve the working classes best by going into National Health Insurance. I made a mistake, and I left it disappointed and disillusioned. I was hampered at every stage, not so much by the conditions which I knew existed, not so much by some of the patients who did not understand that I was trying to do my best for them, but by the conditions under which medical services were allowed to be administered by the Ministry of Health.
I can give two examples. When I was in practice in Greenwich my average for prescribing, because of the conditions of my practice, was very small. I knew every patient. I used to represent them on the borough council, and before they came to me I often saw them in the street and talked to them, and told them to come to the surgery. I kept my sickness rate low; it saved me work in the end. But because my average for prescribing was below the average for the doctors of the district I was inspected and visited by an official of the Ministry of Health and practically censured because I could not give an adequate explanation as to why my prescription rate fell down by a certain fraction below the average of the district.
When I moved to another district where I was a candidate, in Camberwell, a seat I represented before I represented Rochdale, my average exceeded the average by a fraction again by a penny or three halfpence. Again, I was visited by a domineering medical official from the Ministry of Health. He, again, challenged me, for hours, by acute cross-questioning, as to why I had allowed my prescription rate to exceed the average, so that I was blamed when my prescription rate was

below the average, and blamed when it was above the average. In prescribing for the patient I was simply never thinking about averages or cost, but simply trying to do what was best under the conditions existing for my patients and giving the best treatment possible. I had a hay-fever patient in Greenwich and gave him an order for a 25 c.c. bottle and was challenged by a Ministry of Health Official as to why I had not ordered this in one drop or two drop capsules instead of a 25 c.c. bottle. I pointed out that I had to give a series of doses twice a week and that it was cheaper to do it in the way I had prescribed. He calculated that I had used only 23 c.c. and wanted to know what I had done with the two minims that I could not account for. I had to explain for nearly an hour to this man—he ought to have known—that in giving hypodermic injections one occasionally lost a drop or two.
When I was in Paddington, practising under the National Health Insurance scheme, I had a series of patients with artificial openings for the discharge of waste products. I had five of these patients. Some had malignant growths, others gunshot wounds, and so on. I prescribed cotton wool for these people to use to clear themselves up with. Again, I was visited by a Ministry of Health doctor, who queried whether I had the right to prescribe cotton wool in cases of this kind and asked that I should use tow. This is a thick fibred substance, the sort of material you make mats out of; cotton wool is a thing you put on as wound dressings. I asked him if he would care to use tow for himself under such circumstances, and he replied that that had nothing to do with the question, and that I should have saved the Exchequer money rather than prescribed the use of cotton wool. I told him he could go to Hong Kong and that I would stand any challenge. I was then a Member of Parliament. I told him to go to his Minister, who was then a member of my own party, and that I would do what I could to fight the point. I want to press on the Minister that the way in which he chooses his medical officers is bad. The medical officers are distinctly chosen because they have a certain type of mind and a certain type of outlook. A man with a democratic outlook rarely goes into the Ministry of Health, though I was glad


to see recently that they had appointed a Communist into their sacred administration. They are changing a little. They did that before Russia came in; they must have had an inkling of what was going to happen.
Doctors trying to do their best, working the system as well as they can, instead of being helped by officials of the Ministry are really being hamstrung time and time again with wasted mornings, wasted afternoons, because a personal dislike has been taken to a doctor or because his democratic instincts are not liked. Some doctors do not have that difficulty. They put champagne and tea before the regional medical officers. I did not care to do that; therefore I was treated in a certain way. The Minister may say, "You left your practice eight years ago, and that is a long time." But I can give him cases up to 1938, in which doctors have been fined £20 by the Ministry of Health for alleged over-prescribing. One case is that of a Labour candidate, who, I hope, will be in this House after the next election. He has a practice in the East End, where he is doing his best. If ever there was a justifiable case for the Ministry saying that a man was trying to do his job decently, it is that case, in respect of which the Ministry, without allowing me to be present, confirmed the recommendation that the man should be fined for over-prescribing The system is bad. There is no Whitley Council system for the medical men: you have a panel committee; sometimes men are tried by their rivals. I know I should not say that; I am on the B.M.A. Council: there is an esprit de corps in the profession; but that sort of thing does exist. This man was asked, "Do you ever take part in politics?" He said, "Yes, I have been mayor of my borough." Somebody said," Oh, yes. Labour mayors are a penny a piece."
You must take into consideration the difficulties of medical practioners working the service now. They have lost patients through evacuation and through bombing; their practices are ruined; some have mortgaged their practices to the insurance companies and the banks, which opposed the National Health Insurance Act in the first place, but now find that they can make it a good financial investment. These men are keen on giving you a

good service, such as it is. I have spent hours on the end of a telephone, trying to get a patient into hospital or to get an investigation done. It is terribly difficult for a man to make a proper diagnosis on general practice. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman—and, no doubt, the Minister of Health has obtained a certain amount of medical knowledge by inoculation by this time—that if one goes to a panel patient at ten o'clock at night to look at a rash on the skin, with the dim lighting, he will scarcely be able to see the rash with the aid of a torch. If it is a case of scarlet fever the patient must go to hospital, yet if you send the patient to hospital by mistake the doctors there say that you are a fool. These general medical practioners are the backbone of any medical service. Even a State medical service would have to have them. I have worked with these men, and know the difficulties that they are up against, the handicaps that they have to get over. I know that in many cases they are finer, better, nobler, harder-worked men than the doctors who live in the hospitals.
It is because they are doing a decent job of work that I ask the Minister to deal with them in a spirit not of bureaucracy, but of decent humanity, giving consideration to the difficulties of their job. While I welcome the Bill, I hope that the Minister will make his survey comprehensive. Already certain facts are known such as the evidence which was given before the National Health Insurance Commission and the Workmen's Compensation Commission, at which evidence was given by the T.U.C., which took us months of hard labour to prepare. You can dovetail these schemes together, giving you a better service with more democracy in it. I believe that the best way to extol a virtue is to practise it. We are fighting for democracy. Let us try to introduce democratic methods, and so help these doctors who are trying to work a service with the best results under the worst conditions.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: I am glad that the Minister has introduced the Bill in its present form. It is a very simple form. But, while the Bill will receive my warm support, I am disappointed from one angle, about which I believe the Minister spoke long before he held his present very dignified and im-


portant office. That is, with reference to cases of tuberculosis and persons who are certified as being what are commonly called by the medical profession T.B. cases. I am sure that the Minister must receive reports about shop-workers and clerks by the thousand. No statistics can convey what is happening in the distributive and clerical professions. To get a true picture, you must be associated with the industry itself, and with the suffering and misfortunes of the T.B. case.
I have seen in recent years people who have been employed by good employers, under reasonably good conditions, who have been certified as suffering from tuberculosis, who have gone to hospitals and convalescent homes, and who, on approaching their employers afterwards, especially if their work involved handling foodstuffs, have been told, "I am sorry, I cannot employ you; you are a T.B. case." So these people find themselves on the human scrapheap. The Bill increases their statutory benefits from 7s. 6d. to 10s. 6d. per week. I would contrast this with the compensation paid to the man in industry. I have been connected with coalminers for the greater part of my life, and I think I have heard all of the many strange terms that are used in different counties. In Lancashire we use the term "compo men." These men are attached to their employers, because the employer has to pay a measure of compensation for the incapacity from which a man suffers. The employer, therefore, knows that if he tells the man that his employment is at an end, the man will sue him, and a considerable sum will have to be paid to the man for the accident.
But here is the misfortune of the shop-worker. He cannot prove to the satisfaction of any tribunal or anybody where he contracted the disease. He knows that he has no evidence except that he suffers from tuberculosis, but he cannot say how it began or how it was aggravated. He knows that once he is certified as suffering from the disease no employer in the distributive trades will give him a job or even look at him, and he cannot claim compensation from an employer. I would ask the Minister one or two other questions in regard to tuberculosis. I have also seen in recent years, especially in the south of England, the sad misfortune of the T.B. case when

the sufferer goes to his local authority. He is sent to the after-care committee and receives, I believe, a grant of a few shillings per year. In the case of the town where I happen to reside, they grant, in many cases, £25 per year for after-care. I refer to the Surrey County Council in respect of a borough with a population of something like 80,000 people. But for the rest—the amelioration of hardship, discomfort, and all the other disadvantages you must pass the hat round and collect from the people in the streets and at the four-ale bar. That is the only way in which you can really assist the T.B. victim.
I appeal to the Minister to refer this important subject to the Beveridge Committee to see whether something cannot be done to help these unfortunate victims, especially among the clerical and distributive trades. My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) happens to be connected with a very important society, of which, I am very proud to say, I am a member. They have wealth and are very generous indeed, but because of the Regulations, they have to treat their T.B. cases in exactly the same way as every other society. That hurts those who have to administer the Act very much indeed. Therefore, I appeal to the Minister, if he cannot include provision in this Bill, to re-examine all the Regulations and Acts which have a bearing upon tuberculosis and upon those long standing cases where men and women feel that, although they are cured or are in an improved state of health, they are not ready for the high road of industry. I believe that the Minister could discover ways and means of doing something for them.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I am sure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be more than pleased with the way this Bill which he introduced to-day has been received by the House of Commons. Nearly everybody has said that he welcomes the Bill, but there was a big "but" in each of the speeches delivered. I have that big "but," too. I welcome the Bill, but regard it as just a makeshift; and the right hon. Gentleman admitted so much in introducing the Measure. There is no doubt at all that the Bill is necessary, although it is only a short and puny Measure. It is a


Measure which provides that cash benefits may catch up with the increased cost of living; it is not much more than that. In the case of non-manual workers, however —and I should imagine that there will be tens if not hundreds of thousands of them—they will benefit very much by the passing of this Measure. The Bill will do a great deal of good to them apart altogether from an increase in the rates of benefits. In short, this Bill covers Health Insurance benefits and the raising of the income limit for non-manual workers in connection with workmen's compensation and National Health Insurance.
Perhaps the House will forgive me if I utter just one jarring note. Financially, the Bill would not have been necessary at all were it not for the fact that the present Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, reduced the State subsidy to the funds of the Health Insurance scheme by over £2,000,000 per annum. You could have given an increase of 3s., 6s., 9s., or even 12s. per week if all that money had been allowed to accumulate since 1926 up to the present. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health must not look quite so furious at me when I say that, because I am sure it is true. He, like me, may not be a very good statistician. The National Health Insurance scheme has come, naturally and rightly, under a great deal of criticism to-day. But it has been very helpful. Criticisms have been levelled against it from time to time both inside and outside the House of Commons, but the one thing we have to remember is that it is still probably the largest, most important and soundest financially of all our schemes; and it is worth while, therefore, that it should be brought under review in the House of Commons by a Debate of this kind. I regard the small grant made by the State towards the National Health Insurance scheme as the most effective subsidy of all towards social amelioration. The subsidy is not very much, but it provides the Government with the right to audit the accounts of the approved societies.
I would like to project my mind into the future of these schemes. Like my hon. Friend, I have no illusions as to what may happen at the end of the war. I do not forget the time when in a financial crisis we were all asked to tighten

our belts. I am afraid that at the end of this war there will be no belts to tighten for some people, but I will leave that point there. I understand that the Minister without Portfolio has appointed a committee of very eminent persons to prepare us for a great advance in the field of social security; naturally we are all delighted that that work is going on, and we wish the survey every success.
I have tried to calculate how many persons will be affected under this Bill by the addition of 3s. per week disablement benefit because they will be the most tragic cases of all. There are about 350,000 persons always on disablement benefit of from 10s. a week down to 7s. 6d., or, in the case of women, to 6s. Most of them are likely to be on their sick beds; and it is a very remarkable comment on our democracy that, if you have 350,000 persons completely unorganised and voiceless, nobody takes the slightest notice of them. If, however, you have 350,000 persons in good health, all of them organised, and they have a mentality for politics, they can often get something done, and good luck to them. It is to that 350,000 that I think that this Bill will be most welcome. The increase is only 3s., but that is a lot if you have not very much to live on. Strange enough, nobody has made any reference to the greatest omission of all from this Bill. The three cash benefits under National Health Insurance are sickness, disablement and maternity benefits. There is no word here about maternity benefit, and I would like to know why, because this is quite as important a service as either of the other two.
I would like now to say a word or two about health insurance in general. I hope the House of Commons will never forget this fact—that the main objective of health insurance is not the payment of cash benefits, but the prevention of illness. Quite frankly, since the scheme was established the mass of the people seem to have developed the mentality of believing that this scheme is primarily for the purpose of providing cash benefits. As some hon. Members know, there were provisions under the original Act whereby you could classify the records of certain employments over a given period and said to the employer, "You employ 1,000 persons, and the average rate of sickness among them is far too


high. Is there not something wrong with the ventilation or sanitation of your factory? If so, you must remedy all that in order to reduce the sickness rate among your employees."Now all that has disappeared. What I would like to do is to switch the outlook of the people back to the original aim of the scheme—to prevent illness and not merely to pay cash benefits when illness comes along. Let us remember the old adage, "Prevention is better than cure."
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) knows better than most of us that the health of the people of this country has improved enormously during the last two decades. The infantile mortality rate has been halved in the last 30 years; and anybody who cares to study the vital statistics of this country and relate them to National Health Insurance will see the benefit in improved health that has been derived from this scheme. There are, however, two diseases that seem still to baffle the medical profession and the Ministry itself—cancer and rheumatism. Strange as it may seem, once you conquer one fell disease, another seems to emerge.
I welcome very much what is probably the greatest achievement of all in this Bill—the equalisation of the increase in the benefit. It does not equalise benefit; it simply equalises the increase on the original benefits. There is the natural complaint that because an insured contributor pays a given contribution he does not receive the same benefit for that contribution as others. I think the Government will have to face that complaint. I happen to be the secretary of a Society that is regarded by some as being very well-to-do, and I like to think that it is so because I am the secretary, although nobody else believes that. Let me say one thing, with due humility, to the Beveridge Committee on that score. We are told that if you nationalise National Health Insurance and equalise benefits you must automatically abolish the approved society system. But I should have thought that without abolishing approved societies you could' value the whole of the assets and liabilities of all the societies in one unit, instead of valuing 7,000 separate units once every five years, as is the case at present. Additional benefits do not matter for the argument I am now

putting forward. This complaint about the differentiation of benefits will persist, and I doubt if there is any alternative except to lay it down that all benefits paid under this scheme shall be statutory. If you add other statutory benefits, as I think you must, to the three main benefits —sickness, disablement and maternity—there are one or two you can add without much difficulty. I think dental benefit ought to be made statutory; it is one of the most beneficial of all benefits.
I cannot speak for my society, but as a politician I am willing to advocate that all benefits under this scheme should be statutory and not dependent on the valuation and surpluses of individual societies. There is another benefit that might be made statutory too. The time has arrived when medical attention ought to be provided for the dependants of insured persons on exactly the same basis as that provided for insured persons. What is the position now? The population of this country is roughly about 44,000,000, of whom 20,000,000 are already within the National Health Insurance scheme. Strange as it may seem, that 20,000,000 of the population have about 20,000,000 dependants. That would cover 40,000,000 out of the 44,000,000 of our population, and so far as I can understand it, that is one of the most necessary steps that can be taken. I am firmly of the opinion that an extension of medical attention for the non-insured population can be more easily provided through the National Health Insurance scheme. The Minister shakes his head. That is exactly what these Scotsmen do. It is strange, by the way, that we have had a Scotsman to introduce the Bill, a Scotsman is to reply and that a Scots lady is sitting next to the Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw"]. Well, politically the Minister of Health is a Scotsman.

Sir Robert Tasker: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) addressing you, Mr. Speaker, the Minister or his friends behind him?

Mr. Davies: Everybody, I hope. At any rate, I think the hon. Gentleman can hear what I am saying. With regard to raising the income limit from £250 to


£420, I would like the Minister, when he replies, to tell us where did the Ministry get: the idea that there ought to be an income limit at all for non-manual workers. To raise this income limit will of course bring tens of thousands of people compulsorily into the scheme. That is all to the good, but with all respect I think the medical profession has something to do with this differentiation between the income limit of manual and non-manual workers under National Health Insurance. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would disclose to us why the Ministry make a difference in this connection. There is no reason in equity or justice for it. With regard to the raising of the income limit for workmen's compensation, as far as I understand statistics, out of every £1 paid by the employers to premium insurance companies to cover workmen's compensation risks, only about 10s. goes into the pockets of injured workmen; the other 10s. goes in profits, doctors' fees, and particularly, in legal fights. I would like workmen's compensation taken clean out of the hands of profit-making insurance companies; and if the Beveridge Committee would be good enough to take a hint, then I would suggest that they could not do a better piece of work than to consider recommending taking workmen's compensation clean out of the hands of profit-making insurance companies.

Mr. J. Griffiths: And take it out of the hands of the law.

Mr. Davies: Yes: Where a workman meets with an accident and claims compensation, but fails in his claim, he falls on to the funds of the approved society, where there are no legal fees or profit-making possible. I venture the guess that he gets out of Health Insurance premiums paid in respect of him 50 per cent. more than he does in the case of the premium insurance companies. I would urge that that point be borne in mind in future. I should like to show how the Bill will affect an individual by raising the income limit for non-manual workers to £420. I have just come across the case of a member of my own society, who is a clerk. Because his income is over the present limit, he cannot claim workmen's compensation in respect of dermatitis, and we cannot sue for workmen's compensation on his behalf. But once this Bill becomes law, and if he

still suffers from that disease, and his income will fall below £420 a year, we maybe able to sue in court on his behalf. That is something in favour of the Bill, and it is only one case; there must be thousands of similar cases' among non-manual workers. Therefore, the Bill does a great deal to a larger number than some people suppose.
There is a mystery about one thing in the Bill on which I would like the right hon. Gentleman to enlighten us. There is an increase from 13s. to 14s. 6d. for medical services. I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale listens attentively when I touch on that subject; probably he will know something about it. There is an increase of is. 6d. a year. Who is to get that increase? Is there to be an addition of is. for the panel doctor and 6d. for drugs? It would be interesting to know this, because even in the very excellent report of the actuary, there is nothing to show how the is. 6d. is to be divided. It is amazing how clever Civil servants can be when they come to finance. Hon. Members will notice that in order to meet the liability of these increased benefits, which cannot all be met from increased contributions, there is to be an adjustment in respect of interest on investments. I should like to know whether the adjustment means that the investments will actually earn the interest that is to be credited to the funds to meet the new liability. There is, too, some mystery about the account known as the Central Fund. It would be interesting to know what is to happen on that score; and here let me say that it is my experience that when there Is a will to do anything, finance can bend itself to almost any extent. That is shown clearly in this Bill-There are a few small anomalies in the scheme, and I would like to deal with one of them. It is astonishing what can happen under National Health Insurance-. By ancient custom, non-manual workers are entitled to wages during holidays. Some very clever employers have recently found out that they can get behind the law and the regulations by not stamping the cards of their employees during holidays, although wages are paid. The right hon. Gentleman will probably be familiar with this problem. Will he take the occasion of the passing of this small Bill to provide that no employer shall be allowed


to avoid his responsibilities in that direction? If no contributions are paid for each week or fortnight's holiday in respect of all the non-manual workers in the country, the amount of revenue that will be lost to the approved societies may well run into hundreds of thousands of pounds a year, and that, of course, would be detrimental to the scheme.
I come to another point. This Debate has turned more or less to the general problem of social security. This Bill is, of course, only a small contribution towards what we want. The struggle for, and pursuit of, social security has travelled a long way in the lifetime of most of us. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), who comes from the same district as I do, is perhaps able to look back, as I can, to the days when, if a coalminer was injured in the pit, maybe injured for life, all the sustenance he got—and the same applied to the widow of a man killed in the pit—came from collections by way of charity concerts and 6d. each which the colliers gave from their wages at the pithead. Widows, orphans and injured workmen were sustained in that way, because in that district nobody thought they should descend to ask for anything from Poor Law relief. All that has gone. We have seen these social security schemes grow—workmen's compensation, old-age pensions, widows' pensions, orphans' pensions, superannuation and annuity schemes, health and unemployment insurance. They have all emerged during the last half century. For instance, nearly twenty years ago, I moved a Motion in this House in favour of widows' pensions, and, strange though it may seen now, at that time the vast majority of hon. Members voted against the Motion. The argument then was the familiar one that the nation could not afford to give 10s. a week to all the widows in the country. I must pay a tribute to the noble Lady the Member for the Sutton division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), who was, I think, the only Tory who voted for my Motion. I say humorously sometimes that she voted for it because she thought that some day she might require such a pension herself. We are to-day faced with a first-class issue. There are 7,000 approved societies and branches which are all valued as separate units every five years. I suggest, although the approved societies have done their

duty well, that the system cannot possibly continue on its present basis. That is especially so in view of the references made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). Once you provide an approved society with the right to refuse admission, to a married woman, or any persons suffering from some sort of disability, or a person engaged in a certain industry, then you are faced with the fact that this is not a national scheme in the proper sense.
This Committee, set up by the Minister without Portfolio, might consider something else, too. While we are talking about social security, may I say that I wish the Beveridge Committee would have a look at the 1933 Report of the Cohen Committee on industrial assurance, and see what they can make of the recommendations set forth there? It is a very illuminating document indeed. Above all, I hope that Committee will not forget that there ought to be improvements in the provisions for pregnancy and child-birth. I am sure that problem will have been brought to the mind of the Ministry of Health. In conclusion, may I quote what the International Labour Office says in regard to these social and economic security problems? Nowhere has it been better put; the struggle and pursuit for social security among the peoples of all countries is very well painted there.
It declares that—
Any lasting civilisation is unthinkable except on a basis of a new economy and social order, in which workers will enjoy, not only a higher standard of living, but also the absolute guarantee of complete economic security.
I am sure I can say on behalf of the common folk of this country that they agree to the full with those sentiments; and they trust that those sentiments will be translated into law in due course.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) always speaks with a very useful balance of idealism and practical wisdom. I am always very glad to hear him wind up a Debate, when I know a good many high-sounding generalisations—the sort of things referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) —will be brought very close to the actual administration of a well-known society, whose interests he has done so much to


promote in the long period since health insurance became a State undertaking. Indeed, my hon. Friend was connected with societies which were in the field before the State took any interest in social insurance. The House will understand that the Debate has fallen into two parts —a few definite clear-cut questions, mostly put by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) about actual technical points in the Bill, and the welcome of the Bill, as such, with a big "But. "I think that is a fair analysis of the course of the Debate.
Perhaps I had better answer the practical questions first, and then say a few words about the wider issues which have, rightly, occupied most of the time. It is one of the advantages of our Parliamentary methods of discussion that Second Reading Debates give Members, who have long-cherished ideas and ideals and those who have had long experience, opportunities to set their dreams a-going. Despite the disillusionment referred to more than once in the course of the Debate, these dreams do move, if they are true dreams, nearer and nearer to the business of life, and they can find their way into legislation and administration. I was asked by the hon. Member for Gorbals about workmen's compensation. I will give him the relevant passage, without troubling the House by reading the whole of it. He will find the answer in Part II of the Second Schedule. He will find that it covers both the 1930 English and Scottish Act of 1934. With regard to Scotland, in paragraph (d), it states:
(d) under Sub-section (2) of Section forty-eight of the Poor Law Act, 1930, and Subsection (1) of Section eleven of the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1934, in granting or affording outdoor relief;
shall be the first ten shillings and sixpence instead of the first seven shillings and sixpence of such benefit; 
So, the answer is that both are covered in this case. There will be no need to revert to the old pre-1934 fight between London and the rest of the country, including Glasgow. In January next, when the Bill comes into operation, all Poor Law authorities will be circulated so that they may be made aware of these changes in the law. With regard to disregard and workmen's compensation, the question, of course, is not the same. The legal provisions regarding the disregard of workmen's compensation in determining Poor

Law relief are to be found in the Determinations of Needs Act, 1939. Under that Act one-half of workmen's compensation benefit can be disregarded, and there is, therefore, no need to amend those provisions in this Bill.
As I have said, the hon. member for Leigh put a number of technical points. The first refers to the question of schemes under Clause 1 (2). That refers to schemes which are submitted under Section 56 of the Insurance Act, whereby an approved society may submit a scheme of other benefits for sickness and disablement, providing that such schemes are equivalent in benefit. At the moment only one main society is affected, and that is the railway society. The Sub-section gives power to revoke such a scheme if, by reason of the benefits provided for in this Bill, the benefits provided for in the scheme are no longer equivalent to the value of benefits for which they are substituted. It therefore makes sure that no one who is insured under this scheme shall fail to benefit from any benefits which may accrue in the course of the working of this Measure.
The next question, which is also a technical one, relates to reserve values. It is provided that there should be an average rate of contribution for all insured persons, over the age of 16, no matter at what age they enter National Health Insurance. The contribution is fixed on the basis of normal entry at the age of 16. It is not sufficient to meet the whole liability in respect of persons who enter at a higher age. It is one of the difficulties in discussing these intricate matters, that you cannot get a simple balance-sheet atmosphere, because you are considering not only payments in and out, but potential payments and varied lengths of life. To meet any deficiency, an approved society is credited with a capital sum which varies with the age of the person, whenever that person, over 16, became liable to contribution. We have added about 450,000 to our insured population and, necessarily, when benefits are to be increased we have to make sure that the reserve values are correspondingly increased.
Perhaps the House will be interested to know that to secure the redemption of the present amount of outstanding reserve


value, £45,000,000 is the amount required and now we are seeking to add another £18,000,000. It will be seen that the Bill is not quite as puny as my hon. Friend the Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill) described it. We have to provide, as a result, for this contingency, bringing the total amount to £63,000,000. My hon. Friend also put a most interesting question as to the qualifying period. The answer is that with regard to medical benefit there is no waiting period. In regard to sickness benefit, reduced benefit will be payable after 26 weeks and full benefit after 104 weeks in insurance, and in regard to disablement benefit after 104 weeks in insurance. [Interruption.] The hon. Member was asking about new entrants and I have given the precise answer.
If I may turn now to the general Debate, points were directed through us to those who, under the direction of the Minister without Portfolio, are considering the survey of the whole of the insurance and social arrangements. First, of course, it is not because the House has not given attention to National Health Insurance that there have not been bigger changes on the actual sickness and disablement benefit side. I doubt if there is a sphere of the national life, except unemployment insurance, about which there has been more legislation in the past 20 years than National Health Insurance, including—what must not be forgotten—pensions and widows' pensions. The hon. Member for West Fulham was wrong. She said that no woman got any benefit under the Bill unless she went out to work. As some 450,000 new entrants are brought into insurance under the non-manual workers provision, their wives become entitled to old age pensions and widows will get rights under the widows' pensions scheme. The Bill therefore does more for women than the hon. Member understood at first sight from an obviously hurried reading. She and others have said that it does not remove the inequalities which now exist as between men and women, but it does, for the first time, make the increase the same for women as for men, though the level from which they start is the old level.
The hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) put nearly every major point on

the Bill, and other speeches have underlined those points, more or less strongly. Let me point out the questions to which the House has suggested that the attention of the Government and of the Committee now operating under the Minister without Portfolio, should be directed. First, the House has had regard to the real value of the benefits concerned. I must say to the hon. Member for Westhoughton, who asked about maternity benefits, that we are conditioned in the present scheme by the actual amount available in terms of the contributions levied. That is the answer to the general statement that we ought to have done a lot more now. We could not have done more now without seriously jeopardising the prospects of the review that is now being undertaken. At the moment employers and employed in all for insurance pay 3s. 6d. a week. Under this Bill they will pay 3s. 8d. a week. Women pay 2S. 11d. If the Bill becomes law they will pay 3s. 1d. It is a very formidable contribution from employers and employed, especially in some industries, and it is for a very wide range of insured persons. My right hon. Friend and I came to the conclusion, when we were striving to meet the real needs that we are meeting by this increase, that we must not make the contributions higher or we might jeopardise the whole future of that big review. Secondly, when we were devoting the money we wanted to put it where it would do the most good, and I think the House has shown by its attitude that it thinks we have chosen rightly in giving the biggest proportion in percentages to the disablement side.
The future of the disabled was described by the hon. Member for Llanelly and the hon. Member for Gorbals as a tragic case. It is, of course. The hardest of all hospital problems, nursing problems, doctors' problems and insurance problems is the case of the chronic sick. It is tragic and it is one of the outstanding cases which must naturally fall within the social services. Of the major points raised, first there is the question of whether dependants' benefits should be grafted on to National Health Insurance for the first time. The question of dependants' benefits was discussed by the Royal Commission in 1926 and it was estimated that it would cost £9,500,000 a year. The House will see that we could


not do it in this Bill, and they will understand what it means, potentially, in the range of any survey that is made on this subject. The second point was put by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) who said he did not call the National Health Insurance scheme a national scheme but an elementary scheme, and that there was bound to be inequality between people who paid the same rates and got different benefits. The survey that is now being made is not the first survey made on this issue, because the Royal Commission of 1926 had a very full discussion of the matter. It had suggestions to make, and the hon. Member for Westhoughton will know that they did not commend themselves to the approved societies.
A great deal has been said about the approved societies, but the House must not forget 30 years after the start of insurance that voluntary effort was first in the field of social insurance. It may be that at this stage in history the evidence may show that there must be another solution, I express no view about that; it would not be right in view of my right hon. Friend's new committee. The fact is that friendly societies and trade unions were the first in this field, and those who decided to have a national scheme—not in the sense mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale, but a national scheme in which the State took a definite part in contribution and administration— had this choice. They could either scrap the old system and the thousands of branches of the hundreds of societies which had for long periods, some for nearly a century, done voluntary work in helping their members in need; or they could graft the new system on to the old. The new system was grafted on the old and that was recognised by my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly when he pointed out that troubles arose, not because this thing was made, but because, like Topsy, "it grew." It has grown.
Any committee dealing with this problem will have to take evidence from all those concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals was quite right—he has given evidence to too many committees not to know it by experience— when he said that they will have to hear every point of view, because the great

majority of approved societies are democratic organisations. They have a democratic right to be heard, and they will be heard in the course of the committee's inquiries. My hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) made three propositions. I will look at them in black and white because they seem—one of them, at any rate—to contain the germs of some of the things that the hon. Member has not been fond of in the realm of unemployment insurance. He spoke about some authority to make a continuous review, but I have heard speeches from him about unemployment insurance in which he did not show much favour for a continuous review committee or a committee not responsible to this House handling that problem. That is why I say that, while not pre-judging, I will look carefully at what he said on those three points. I must say a word of congratulation to the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Manchester (Mr. Hewlett), who made a very charming maiden speech full of practical knowledge. He found at once that he was now in a Chamber where the hon. Member who followed him, while congratulating him, could say that he had not been persuaded by his persuasive and delightful speech.
The House, I think, is agreed to give this Bill a Second Reading. Some Members appreciate more in it than others, but all are glad that this temporary step has been taken. The real big issues must, of course, await the results of the Committee's work, and Parliament will apply its mind to the results of their inquiry. The hon. Member for Westhoughton put one or two Questions which I should be wrong not to answer. He asked why we had not made an addition to maternity benefit. When we decided what we should do with the money available from the extra 2d. we came to the conclusion that we ought to throw the weight on the side of disablement benefits. We were confirmed in that view because of the need of the disabled and because there has been a tremendous development of maternity and child welfare services apart from National Health Insurance. Since the last increase in maternity benefit from 30s. to 40s. in 1920, the expenditure on maternity and child welfare services has increased from £1,000,000 a year to £3,500,000. About 70 per cent. of children under one year


attend infant welfare clinics and 50 per cent. of the women attend ante-natal clinics. We also had regard to the feeling of the Royal Commission of 1926 that any development of this benefit should be in the direction of an increase of the services provided under proper conditions of control. My hon. Friend asked about the provision of the is. 6d. The whole sum is 2s. 6d., is. of which will remain in the benefit funds of the approved societies to fortify them against the various changes of administration. Various charges are included in the remaining is. 6d. The capitation fee has to be increased, there will be an increase of mileage payments to rural doctors, there will be the increased cost of drugs and increased cost of insurance administration because of the war.
My hon. Friend also asked me about contributions during holidays. This is linked with the Question which the House has discussed of holidays with pay, and in advance of whatever new discussions may take place on that subject—they were suspended owing to the outbreak of war—I, cannot say anything more at this stage. With regard to interest, perhaps I may save the time of the House by directing my hon. Friend's attention to paragraph 4 of the Actuary's report on the Bill where he will find a statement on the relation of the 3½ per cent. to the present basis.
This has been a very interesting Debate and has enabled Members to show what wide views they hold. I do not want my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale to think that I have overlooked the fact that there is more than a cash side to this insurance scheme. There is a medical side, too, and I am sure that one of the things to which the Committee will have to apply its mind, will be the question of how the doctors, the public and the State can get the best, from the point of view of preventive medicine, out of the various provisions that have been made or may be made in future.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for the next Sitting Day.— [Mr. Munro.]

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE, CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS AND WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[COLONEL CLIFTON BROWN IN THE CHAIR.]

Resolved,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the rates of sickness and disablement benefit and the rates of contribution payable under the Acts relating to National Health Insurance, to extend the said Acts to persons employed otherwise than by way of manual labour at a rate of remuneration exceeding two hundred and fifty pounds a year, and in connection therewith to amend the Acts relating to widows', orphans and old age contributory pensions and certain other enactments, and to enable any of the Acts aforesaid to be adapted by regulations to wartime conditions, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase, resulting from the operation of the said Act of the present Session, in expenditure which is authorised to be so defrayed under or by virtue of the National Health Insurance Acts, 1936 to 1939, the Widows', Orphans and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts, 1936 to 1940, the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, the Old Age Pensions Act, 1936, or Part II of the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Act, 1940." (King's recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Ernest Brown.]

Resolution to be reported upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — COLONIAL WAR RISKS INSURANCE (GUARANTEES) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): I beg to move, "That the Bill he now read a Second time."
The purpose of this Measure is fully explained in the explanatory memorandum attached to the Bill. It is to enable the Government to guarantee schemes of insurance of commodities against war risk in Colonial dependencies which do not possess the financial resources to undertake the institution of schemes without such assistance. Happily, few of our Colonies have yet been exposed so much to the destruction brought about by enemy action as this country has. Others might suffer in certain contingencies. Just as in this country, the trading communities in various dependencies have been anxious, in financing their operations, to have the


advantage of some kind of insurance cover against the risks of damage to their stock-in-trade by enemy action. The potential liabilities of such an insurance are, however, very considerable, and the resources at the command of some Colonial Governments which are likely to be affected are not sufficient to enable them to undertake those large liabilities, with the result that last autumn the late Secretary of State, Lord Lloyd, approached the Chancellor of the Exchequer and secured agreement to the principle of Colonial schemes being instituted where necessary with the backing of His Majesty's Government. It was agreed that the Treasury would meet any deficits which might arise on the operation of such guaranteed schemes, and, of course, it followed that any profit or surplus on the operations of such a scheme would be disposed of as the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, may direct. This method of procedure was thought to be preferable to the institution of a single scheme centralised in London and covering all Colonies or all those likely to be affected.
What we contemplate Is that local schemes would be instituted in dependencies or groups of dependencies as and when they appear to be necessary. We hope to have the advantage of local management through the locally-established insurance companies, who will act as agents for the Colonial Governments. In accordance with this intention a scheme has been in operation in Kenya and Uganda since 1st January, 1941, and I announced in reply to a Question in this House on 6th February that if the necessary legislation were passed by Parliament a guarantee then would be given to the scheme by His Majesty's Government. Similar promises have since been given to Palestine and Hong-Kong, but there schemes have not yet actually come into operation. The matter has also been considered in certain other territories, in particular Ceylon and West Africa, but it has not yet seemed sufficiently pressing to necessitate any action. As regards Malta, it has been decided not to proceed with the scheme, since all important trade is now on Government account. In Cyprus the matter is under consideration. In Malaya a scheme has been brought into operation, but I am pleased to say that the financial resources of the local administration are sufficient to enable them to dis-

pense with any guarantee from His Majesty's Government.
Hon. Members will see that the Bill is a short one, consisting of two Clauses. Clause 1 provides that Colonial schemes to be covered by the Bill must be on the same general lines as the commodities war risk insurance scheme operating in this country, and based on Parts 2 and 3 of the United Kingdom Act of 1939. The schemes will be compulsory and the rates of premium will be subject to approval here. In the case of the Kenya and Uganda scheme, the rate of premium was originally 7s. 6d. per cent. per month. At present it is 3s. 9d. per cent. per month, and it has now been further reduced to 2s. per cent. per month. Clause 1 also makes necessary provision for the advancement of money from the Exchequer to a Colonial fund to meet temporary deficits in that fund, also for the subsequent repayment of such advances by the fund, so that we safeguard the interests of the taxpayers here.
Clause 2 extends the provisions of this measure to the Sudan, to British protectorates and protected States and territories under British mandates. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it is right that we should extend this measure of assistance to Colonies which, like ourselves, are liable to aggressive attack, and also, like ourselves, are contributing to the best of their ability to the common war effort. As is stated in the Financial Memorandum which accompanies the Bill, we cannot give the House any estimate of the possible liabilities which may be placed on the British Exchequer by this Measure, but I feel sure that hon. Members will accept this uncertain liability as a part of the necessary cost of the war. It is desirable that the Bill should be passed into law without delay, as the Kenya and Uganda scheme is already in operation, and the formal guarantee should become operative as soon as possible.

Mr. T. Smith: This Bill is regarded as a necessary Measure, and therefore I should like to assure my hon. Friend that we on this side shall not do anything which would hinder its passing, but there are one or two questions which I should like him to answer. I am told that in Ceylon commercial interests have been asking for a scheme of this character. I should like him to tell us whether


he has any information about it. Secondly, in various parts of our Colonial Empire there are stocks of commodities kept there for specific purposes, and we should like to know whether those stocks will be covered by any scheme instituted under this Bill. If my hon. Friend will give me that information, there is no reason why the Bill should not go through very quickly.

Sir Granville Gibson: I should like a little information on one or two points. I take it that among the British Protectorates and protected States is Palestine. When I send goods to Palestine, say to Jerusalem, the customer sometimes desires that they should go by parcel post. I am able to cover the goods until their arrival at the Palestinian port, say Haifa, but I have no cover at all between their arrival at Haifa and their arrival in Jerusalem. I welcome the Bill because it seems to cover goods immediately they arrive at the shore—taken off the ship, for example, at Haifa and until the time they arrive at Jerusalem. If the goods go by parcel post, does the cover come into operation? I am informed that there is no war damage cover of goods taken to some foreign country—to take a case in point, say from Alexandria to Cairo—by the General Post Office. Will there be any cover to any specific point? At the present time for goods that go by post, there is no cover beyond the port of arrival, in the country to which the goods are sent. In these difficult days, goods destined for a certain country may go to all kinds of ports; for instance, for the Sudan the goods may go to Port Sudan or to Alexandria. Therefore, if goods arrive at Port Said or Alexandria when sent by parcel post, there is no cover between Alexandria and Port Said or Port Sudan, if the goods go that way. What is to happen, if this scheme comes into operation, to goods sent by parcel

post as against the ordinary shipping process?

Mr. George Hall: I can speak again only by leave of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) raised a point concerning Ceylon. I explained in the course of my remarks that Ceylon is now considering the institution of a scheme, but the local Government have not yet deemed it necessary to take any action. Presumably the latter is still being considered, but I have no doubt that if sufficient pressure is exercised the Government will take action. Fortunately, Ceylon is outside—at least it has not been greatly affected by—the war, so far. If the territory were likely to be affected, the Government would take action in connection with the matter. With regard to the stocks, my hon. Friend is quite right. Considerable stocks have been purchased, particularly in West Africa. West Africa does not come into the scheme yet, for the single reason to which I have referred in connection with Ceylon, but we are in consultation with the Ministries of Food and Supply as to whether they wish stocks in their own ships to be covered. These negotiations and consultations are going on at the present time.
With regard to the point put by the hon. Member for Pudsey and Otley (Sir G. Gibson), it is hardly possible for me to give a reply as to whether the goods are covered in the post or in sea transit. I should say that the scheme applies only to stocks over £1,000 in value, and stocks of goods of less than that value will not come under the scheme. I am not quite sure about goods exceeding that value, but I will make inquiries and let the hon. Gentleman know.

Question, ''That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for the next Sitting Day.— [Major Dugdale.]

Orders of the Day — COLONIAL WAR RISKS INSURANCE (GUARANTEES) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[COLONEL CLIFTON BROWN IN THE CHAIR.]

Resolved,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise the Secretary of State to agree to make good any deficiencies in funds established by colonies and certain other countries for insuring commodities against war risks, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, or the issue out of the Consolidated Fund, of any sums required by the Secretary of State for the purpose of any agreement made in pursuance of the said Act; and
(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any sum received by the Secretary of State in pursuance of any such agreement."— (King's recommendation signified.)—[Mr. George Hall.]

Resolution to be reported upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — NAVY, ARMY AND AIR EXPENDITURE, 1939.

Considered in Committee.

[COLONEL CLIFTON BROWN IN THE CHAIR.]

"I. Whereas it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day" of March, 1940, that, as shown in the Schedule hereunto appended, the total surpluses and deficits on Navy Votes for that year are as follows:

£ 
s.
d.


Total Surpluses
2,335,074
 8
 9


Total Deficits
30,896,285 
19
 0


Net Deficit (charged against the Vote of credit)

£28,561,211 
10
 3

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of realised surpluses towards making good the said deficits.

SCHEDULE.


No. of Vote
Navy Services, 1939, Votes
Deficits
Surpluses


Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure
Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts
Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure
Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts






£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


1
Wages, etc., of Officers and Men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, and Civilians employed Fleet Services
…
…
8,994,459
15
5
—
—
539,092
9
11


2
Victualling and Clothing for the Navy 
…
…
4,028,399
1
5
—
—
542,471
1


3
Medical Establishments and Services 
…
…
317.401
16
0
6,815
11
2
—
—


4
Fleet Air Arm 
…
—
—
—
—


5
Educational Ser vices
…
…
—
5.320
6
11
17,709
0
11
—


6
Scientific Services 
68,269
11
7
50,768 
13
7
—
—


7
Royal Naval Re serves
…
…
—
43
12
3
201,160
1
10
—


8
Shipbuiding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.:
13,366,31
14
4
1,812,498
5
6
—
380,726
3




Section I — Personnel
…



 Section II — Matériel
…



Section III—Contract Work
…


9
Naval Armaments 
…
…


10
Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad
…


11
Miscellaneous Effective services
1,846,076
3
2
42,832
16
5
—
—


12
Admiralty Office
336,390
19
11
5,267
5
1
—
—


13
Non-effective Ser(Naval and Marine) —Officers
—
—
397.747
0
0
5,289
17
10


14
Non-effective Ser(Nava. and Marine)Men
…
—
—
119,641
0
10
1,071
9
4


15
Civil Super annual Allowances and Gratuities
…
—
2,531
18
8
130,166
3
11
—


—
Balances Irrecoverable and Claims abandoned
12,898
7
7
—
—
—






28,970,207
9
5
1,926,078
9
7
866,423
7
6
1,468,651
1
3






Total Deficits
£ 30,896,285
19
0
Total Surpluses
£ 2,335,074
8
9






Net Deficit met from Vote of Credit £ 28,561,211 10 3 "

Resolved, "That the application of such surpluses be sanctioned."— [Capt. Crookshank.]

"II. Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1940, that, as shown in the Schedule hereunto appended, the total surpluses and deficits on Army Votes for that year are as follows: —

SCHEDULE.


No. of Vote
Army Services, 1939, Votes.
Deficits
Surpluses


Excesses of Actual over estimated gross Expenditur
Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts
Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure
Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts


£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


1
Pay, etc., of the Army
…
…
45,369,158
6
10
1,283,649
16
5
—
—


2
Territorial Army and Reserve Forces
…
…
—
20,363
0
0
7,604,668
5
0
—


3
Medical Services
…
2,427,707
12
10
25,997
15
10
—
—


4
Educational Establishments.
—
87,409
18
7
359,411
5
7
—


5
Quartering and Movements
…
8,403,967
14
5
34,637
2
0
—
—


6
Supplies, Road Transport and Remounts
…
23,880,138
12
5
86,905
11
3
—
—


7
Clothing
…
…
—
235,683
0
11
14,647,327
16
4
—


8
General Stores 
…
—
—
6,470,333
11
4
60,066
19
1


9
Warlike Stores 
…
—
3,163,528
1
5
49,729,397
9
6
—


10
Works, Buildings and Lands
…
—
701,204
9
5
1,232,366
9
1
—


11
Miscellaneous Effective Services
…
…
—
139,018
3
6
16,355
8
3
—


12
War Office
…
685,897
0
2
9,899
5
5
—
—


13
Half-pay Retired Pay and other Non - effective Charges for Officers
…
—
2,559
3
8
237, 146
13
8
—


24
Pensions and other Non - effective Charges for Warrant Officers Non-com Officers men and others
…
…
—
9,261
15
3
250,135
6
6
—


15
Civil Superannuation Compensation and Gratuities
…
10,194
15
7
493
14
0
—
—


—
Balances Irrecoverable and Claims Abandoned
…
…
343,084
5
8
—
—
—






81,120,148
7
11
5,800,610
17
8
80,547,031
5
3
60,066
19
1






Total Deficits 
£ 86,920,759
5
7
Total Surpluses 
£ 80,607,098
4
4






Net Deficit met from Vote of Credit £ 6,313,661 1 3 "

£
s.
d.


Total surpluses
80,607,098
4
4


Total deficits
86,920,759
5
7


Net deficit (charged against the Vote of Credit)
£6,313,661
1
3

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of realised surpluses towards making' good the said deficits.

Resolved, "That the application of such surpluses be sanctioned."—[Mr. Richard Law.]

"III. Whereas it appears by the Air Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1940, that, as shown in the Schedule hereunto appended, the total surpluses and deficits on Air Votes for that year are as follows: —

SCHEDULE


No. of Vote
Air Services, 1939. Votes
Deficits
Surpluses


Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure
Deficiences of actual as compared with estimated Receipts
Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure
Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts



£
s.
d
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


1
Pay, etc., of the Royal Air Force.
8,761,503
14
11
592,198
4
2
—
—


2
Quartering Non-Technical Stores, Supplies and Transportation.
3.295.175
3
3
—
—
67,199
17
11


3
Technical and Warlike Stores.
22,454,887
12
10
3,743,776
15
1
—
—


4
Works, Buildings and Lands
…
6,942,836
15
7
474.187
18
9
—
—


5
Medical Services
…
186,485
6
7
34.748
19
9
—
—


6
Technical Training and Educational Services
—
6,494
6
3
781,846
12
8
—


7
Reserve and AuxiForces
…
—
510
18
5
3,809,460
9
0
—


8
Civil Aviation 
…
—
103,121
14
3
2,845,112
18
5
—


9
Meteorological and Miscellaneous Effective Services 
…
…
—
—
407.013
7
7
584
7
2


10
Air Ministry
…
369,786
8
3
21,318
12
6
—
—


11
Half-Pay, Pensions and other Non-effective Services
33,678
4
5
25,695
8
10
—
—


—
Balances Irrecoverable and Claims Abandoned
…
…
6,101
1
9
—
—
—






42,050,454
7
7
5,002,052
18
0
7,8 43,433
7
8
67,784
5
1






Total Deficits 
£47,052,507
5
7
Total Surpluses 
£7,911,217
12
9






Net Deficit met from Vote of Credit £39,141,289 12 10"

Resolved, "That the application of such surplus be sanctioned. "—[Sir A.Sinclair.]

£
s.
d.


Total surpluses
7,911,217
12
9


Total deficits
47,052,507
5
7


Net deficit (charged against the Vote of Credit)
39,141,289
12
10

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of realised surpluses towards making good the said deficits

Orders of the Day — PHARMACY AND MEDICINES BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[COLONEL CLIFTON BROWN IN THE CHAIR.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Alternative conditions to be complied with by authorised sellers of poisons.)

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): I beg to move, in page 1, line 15, to leave out "articles other than," and to insert:
drugs, or of drugs and medical appliances, or of drugs and surgical appliances, or of.
This Amendment, and the one which follows, are little more than drafting Amendments. Clause 1 of this Bill represents a settlement of a question that has given a good deal of trouble since the Pharmacy Act of 1933 was passed. It was found after that Bill became an Act that co-operative societies and certain other multiple shops were placed under an unforeseen disadvantage, namely, that if they had any one branch where they sold poisons they had to have a registered pharmacist in charge at any other branch where they sold drugs which were not included in the poisons list. That has been the position since 1933, but for many years the Pharmaceutical Society and the Co-operative Congress have had an understanding. That understanding was brought to an end as the result of a decision in the High Court in December, 1937, and since then there has been this lacuna in the law. Clause 1 of this Bill provides that it shall not be necessary under those circumstances to have a registered pharmacist at each of the premises of a multiple concern where drugs are sold, provided certain conditions are complied with, and those conditions will be found set out in paragraphs (a) to (g) of Sub-section (1) of this Clause.
One of the principal considerations in the minds both of the Pharmaceutical Society and of the multiple shops concerned is that the sale of drugs shall form only a small part of the total business carried on on those premises. It is very convenient, especially in country districts, that it should be possible to obtain certain common remedies either at a grocer's shop or at a co-operative stores, but if it is not to be necessary that there should be a registered pharmacist in charge of the branch where these articles are sold, then the conditions referred to must be com-

plied with. The principle condition is that the sale of drugs shall form a small part of, and shall only be ancillary to, the general business carried on. In reducing to words this understanding between the Pharmaceutical Society and the co-operative stores, we have had some difficulty in getting the right draft. If hon. Members, however, look at Subsection (3) of Clause 1, they will see that we have taken power to make regulations for determining certain matters. When we came to look at condition (a) in Subsection (1) very closely it was thought that the words "the predominant part of of the business '' might be considered by a court of law as implying anything in excess of 50 per cent. of the business. It is, as I say, the intention of the parties that the sale of drugs in these cases should consist only of a very small part of the total turnover, and in order to secure that end we thought it better to provide not that the
 sale of articles other than drugs …must constitute the predominant part …
but rather that the sale of drugs, etc.,
must not constitute a substantial part. …
We thought that would meet the intention of the parties better than the words which were originally included in the Clause.

Sir Francis Fremantle: Is there a difference between medical appliances and surgical appliances, and if so what happens, supposing a shop has medical and surgical appliances but no drugs? That seems to have been left out.

Mr. Peake: I believe there is a difference between medical appliances and surgical appliances, and I should have thought that my hon. Friend was in a better position than I am to decide that question. The Clause, however, is now so drafted that the sales of drugs, medical appliances and surgical appliances added together, must not constitute a substantial part of the turnover of the premises.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir F. Fremantle: It does not seem to me to make sense as it is now.

The Deputy-Chairman: There is nothing before the Committee at the moment. We have decided the point.
Further Amendment made: In page I, line 16, leave out "constitute the predominant," and insert "not constitute a substantial."

Captain Elliston: I beg to move, in page 1, line 26, to leave out "dispensed," and to insert" compounded."
The effect of this Amendment, and of the following Amendment standing in my name, is to make it unlawful for any medicine to be compounded in branch businesses belonging to chemists unless there is a pharmacist. I do not think it necessary to stress the desirability of this Amendment, because the Bill as at present drafted applies such a prohibition to prescriptions only. I take it that this is a matter of drafting and I trust that my hon. Friend will be able to accept the Amendment without further discussion.

Mr. Peake: We have looked at the Amendment, and I think we are in agreement that it is not desirable that any compounding or dispensing of any kind should be carried out at those branches where there would be no registered pharmacist in charge. The hon. and gallant Member's Amendment extends the ban upon such dispensing or compounding so as to bring within the mischief of the Clause, a practice which, I believe, is common in the north of England, of taking along to a chemist's shop a prescription not provided by a doctor but taken out of a newspaper or handed down from one's grandmother. The hon. and gallant Member's Amendment will, therefore, have the support of the Government.

Mr. Woods: I should like to know whether this proposal is entirely satisfactory. It is all very well for the Minister to suggest that these prescriptions are handed down from one's grandmother. But take the case of a typical mining community where people suffer from lumbago. It is not a question of speculation or one's grandmother but of actual experience, and it is a very common thing in a mining village for a miner to ask for a simple prescription which has been found an effective remedy for an ailment to which miners are particularly subject. All that this Amendment means is that they would have to take two bottles instead of one and they would be able to get both these ordinary ingredients, which

are standing commodities. It is a question of two or three oils for rubbing in and of whether one bottle or two or three have to be taken to the shop. It is not a question of dispensing. It is a question of practice for years. I imagine that miners will think that the House of Commons has gone a little sentimental when it demands that three bottles should be taken along instead of one, and that the miners should get these ingredients and mix them themselves. The Committee would be well advised to be satisfied with "dispensing "in the ordinary sense of the word. We were given assurances on the Second Reading that herbalists would be able to continue to practise.

The Deputy-Chairman: This Amendment does not concern herbalists.

Mr. Woods: I think it concerns the village store—not particularly herbalists but cases where a village store has a supply of herbs. This Amendment would mean that these herbs could be sold separately but that they could not be compounded. I suggest we might be satisfied with "dispensing" and not try to tighten up the Clause further.

Mr. Peake: I would only say that we have discussed this Amendment with the Pharmaceutical Society on the one hand and co-operative societies on the other, and it has proved mutualy acceptable to them. Of course, if the idea we have in view could be so easily evaded by the miner's wife taking two bottles to the grocer's instead of one, and dispensing her own mixture when she gets home, then the Amendment proposed by my hon. and gallant Friend is not going to do very much harm.

Mr. J. Griffiths: What is the difference between dispensing and compounding?

Mr. Peake: The hon. Member cannot catch me with that one. If he will look at Clause 1 (10) he will see that the expression "dispensed" means supplying on order in accordance with a prescription duly given by a registered medical practitioner. We are using the word "compounding" in preference to the word "dispensing" because the prescriptions which have been discussed in the Amendment now before the Committee have not been duly given by a registered medical practitioner.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 1, line 26, after "premises," insert" for the use of a particular person."

In page 2, line 29, leave out "sale of articles other than," and insert:
retail sale of drugs, or of drugs and medical appliances, or of drugs and surgical appliances, or of.

In line 31, leave out "the predominant," and insert "constituting a substantial."

In page 3, line 44, leave out "and surgical."— [Mr. Peake.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Prohibition of advertisements relating to certain diseases.)

The Deputy-Chairman: The first Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Dr. Peters): In page 5, line 9, at the end, to insert:
or to a reference to or prescription of herbal or other treatment given to a patient at a healing centre or privately and not connected with a registered medical practitioner or registered pharmacist.
has not been selected.

Dr. Peters: I do not wish to disagree with the Chair but I wish to raise a point. My Amendment really does go to the essence of the particular words referring to a certain article or articles. I do not know whether that decision could be reconsidered.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid this Bill refers to articles. This Amendment deals with treatment, which is quite a different matter.

Dr. Peters: I beg to move, in page 5, line 26, at the end, to insert:
(i) persons engaged in medical research not coming within the provisions of paragraph (g) here of.
There is a similar Amendment on Clause 5, which is consequential. There are people, like myself, who for a number of years have taken an interest in all kinds of healing; and it need hardly be said that over that long period, one has found that the medical profession, for which I have the greatest respect, in some cases does not produce a cure. I am anxious that other people who are not

registered practitioners, who do not come within the various provisions of this Clause, but who are engaged, quite earnestly, in finding out what all these various methods of healing point to, should have the benefit of those provisions, which apply to medical men and other bodies. I do not think that that is unreasonable. I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister will be able to accept the Amendment. I was associated with him as his Parliamentary Private Secretary for many years, and I know with what thoroughness he prepares his brief. In court I would often like to have a look at the brief of my opponent, and, similarly, I would like to see my right hon. Friend's brief now. I hope he will not close his mind to this proposal.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): My hon. Friend knows that if I could meet him at all, I would do so. We got along very well, as he has said, when I was in another office. But I am in a difficulty here. The object of this Clause is a fundamental one. It is to prevent sufferers and their friends and relations from being imposed upon by advertisements of useless remedies. The Amendment is so vague that I have not the least idea what it means, or who would come under it. As I read it, almost anyone who describes himself as being engaged in medical research would benefit by the Amendment. It is not possible to separate persons engaged in medical research as a definite class. It would open the door to a very wide circulation of advertisements by an ill-defined and indefinable group. If my hon. Friend has a particular point, affecting a definable group, I shall be very glad to talk to him about it, and to see whether anything can be done.

Dr. Peters: In view of the way my right hon. Friend has met me, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Loftus: I thoroughly approve of the Clause. It prohibits, however,
the publication of any advertisement referring to any article, or articles of any description, in terms which are calculated to lead to the use of that article or articles of that description for the purpose of…


and then follows the list. There are several natural mineral waters which are strongly recommended by eminent doctors, not for the cure but for the treatment of such diseases as diabetes. There is a firm in this country which imports these famous mineral waters from foreign springs, and which has issued a prescription for their use. In three or four cases, the highest medical authorities have recommended their use for the alleviation or treatment of such diseases as diabetes. I have not a copy of the prescription, because, unfortunately, all copies were destroyed recently in the city of London. But I should like an assurance that these famous mineral waters, if recommended for the treatment of people suffering from diabetes, will not come under the Clause, and that the individuals themselves will not be liable to prosecution. Also, I would like to be assured that the research work carried out, and the remarkable results achieved, by bio-chemical workers will not be, in any way, hampered by this Clause.

Mrs. Tate: I should like to ask the Minister whether, under this Clause as it stands, if at some future date someone outside the medical profession produces a cure for any of these diseases, it will be impossible to describe it in the public Press. I visualise a purely imaginary case, which might, however, arise. Although I have had very great kindness from many members of the medical profession, I am one of those people who have absolutely no faith in them whatever. I consider that a doctor's plate on the door might be considered, in many cases, to be advertising of a dishonest kind, for it leads the gullible public into the illusion that if they enter that door they may be relieved of their ills, whereas they are far more likely to be relieved of the contents of their pockets and of part of their bodily organs. In this country the main idea of a cure among the medical profession is to eliminate as large a portion of the body as possible. Surgery is a most important part of medicine.

Sir F. Fremantle: The hon. Member is out of date.

Mrs. Tate: Perhaps I am, but I believe that that is a general experience. A

man told me only the other day that, having a very bad pain in his shoulder, he consulted an eminent Harley Street surgeon, who told him that he had chronic appendicitis, and it was so serious that it would be necessary for him to spend three weeks in a nursing-home before it became possible to operate. As the man did not wish—

The Deputy-Chairman: This Clause does not deal with treatment by medical specialists.

Mrs. Tate: I apologise if I stepped outside the bounds of Order. I merely wished to say that I should not like it to be impossible for any prescription for these diseases to be published in the Press. The less power there is left in the hands of the medical profession, the more pleased I shall be.

Dr. Peters: I hope that I shall be able to keep in Order. What I want to say now, Colonel Clifton Brown, is partly what you prevented me from saying just now. I want to bring one or two things to the notice of my right hon. Friend. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) mentioned the point that he raised just now. I feel that any reference to any such remedies which have come into this country during the past few years would, at once, bring them into my right hon. Friend's net. The people concerned could easily be prosecuted as criminals. I hope that that will be remembered. There are certain nice little things of which one is supposed to take so many. That is a case of an article, not a treatment. I dare say that some of my right hon. Friends and colleagues know that there are spiritual healing centres in which you do not get spiritual healing, but prescriptions of herbs. They involve an article and not a treatment. I should say that herbs are prescribed in the vast majority of cases, plus some other treatment, but I leave that out. Those people, undoubtedly, will come within my right hon. Friend's ban. It is no use the Minister shaking his head. I know that if I went before a court of law I could argue what was an article. There are hundreds of these healing centres up and down the country. Does my right hon. Friend really want to try to stop them and other quasi-religious people—and some very religious people are. doing this


work. There is the bio-chemist. There are some medical practitioners who are doing that work. They are highly-skilled medical practitioners, but there are others who are not medical practitioners and who are carrying out the same sort of work.
My right hon. Friend has a golden opportunity of showing that great heart of his by not making it impossible for people who cannot get cured in one way, to go somewhere else. I wart to see all these different cross-sections of healing brought together, so that we shall not have all this friction between one and another. When persons are suffering— and we have the greatest sorrow and feeling for those who are suffering—and they cannot get healing from one form of medical science, let them go somewhere else. Do not let us try to prevent them. In 1939 we had a Cancer Bill which contained provisions with regard to advertising. Here we have a number of other diseases mentioned in this Clause. There are treatments for them, and, like the insulin treatment, they have to go on and on, and they are not a cure. I do not want to see the Government taking part in anything that will stop people who can cure these sufferers doing so—-and they have cured them in hundreds of cases on record. I know that my right hon. Friend does not want to do it, but the provision in this Bill is the thin end of the wedge. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not lend himself to any Measure which would stop suffering humanity from getting treatment elsewhere, if effective treatment cannot be found in the orthodox manner.

Dr. Russell Thomas: Although I welcome Clause 3 and congratulate the Minister on putting it in the Bill, because it is a step in the right direction and I think it is an estimable thing that parliament should interfere. But I would like to say a word or two about the mysterious list of diseases defined in this Clause. It is not a long list, but it is meant to be impressive, although, in my opinion, it will not have the slightest effect whatsoever on the advertising of patent medicines. I notice that one of these diseases is locomotorataxy. It seems a very nice idea to have this disease included in the Clause to prevent people from advertising cures for it, but let us for a moment examine it. I do not want to be pedantic or to appear to be teaching the Committee

anything, but this is a very rare disease indeed. It has to do with syphilis and occurs five, seven or ten years after infection, taking an insidious course. It might, indeed, take one, two or more years before a person gets into such a condition that he must seek medical advice. In the meantime the patient, I believe, suffers from certain symptoms in the early stages, such as pains in the legs and a staggering gait and quite easily can use remedies advertising cures for neuritis and dizziness, ad lib, with nothing to check him until the disease is diagnosed. When the disease is diagnosed the patient is taken great care of by a doctor or by a hospital until he either gets better or dies, when there will be no opportunity at all of any patent remedy getting near him. In any case it would not pay people to advertise cures for this disease, because the number of people suffering from it in the country is so few that the amount of patent medicine sold would not pay for the advertisements.
The next disease I want to deal with—because I think it is important to examine it under this Clause—is diabetes. This is a very well-known complaint, but very often people suffering from it do not know anything about it for a long time. They feel themselves getting weaker, but they go on with their work and use all sorts of patent remedies for their weakness, continuing to do so until their disease is diagnosed. Often a diagnosis is not made because the patient has not sought medical advice until he gets so weak that he has to be sent to hospital, where everything is done for him byway of diet and insulin, and I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) that the doctor can recommend mineral waters and biological treatment, if he thinks fit. The whole of his remaining life is protected and regimented. I do not think this Clause will have the slighest effect on the advertising campaign for the debility and weakness I have referred to, before the disease is diagnosed.
Then we have two most remarkable complaints listed in this Clause—glaucoma and cataract. Let us deal with cataract first. Everybody knows that, normally speaking, cataract is a disease which does not show itself until late in life. The eyes get dim, and the patient gradually begins to lose his sight. As a rule the patient does not consider taking patent medicines for


that but generally consults an oculist. There is nothing in the Bill, however, to prevent a person using all sorts of eye drops until the cataract is diagnosed. The Clause will have no effect on this sort of advertising.
The inclusion of glaucoma in the Clause is most remarkable, and completely futile. Glaucoma is also a disease of the eyes, and a person suffering from it slowly loses his sight and, unless he receives attention, may become blind; but until he seeks advice from an oculist he will use all sorts of powders and remedies which will be advertised for pain in the head. No vendor of patent medicines would be so foolish as to say that he has a cure for cataract or glaucoma, but there will be ample scope until the disease gets to such a pass that the patient seeks medical or surgical advice for the patent medicine vendor to advertise in a subtle way remedies which, in a general sense, would treat the particular symptoms from which the person is suffering.
There is also included Bright's disease, a disease which varies considerably. There is acute Bright's disease, which comes on quickly, so that the patient becomes very ill and sends for his doctor, and there is no chance of his getting into the hands of a patent medicine vendor. Then there is, chronic Bright's disease, which is more insidious than the other form. The first thing sometimes which most people known about a patient who has chronic Bright's disease is that he has had a stroke in the street and is dead. In later life the kidneys often get diseased, the patient is short of breath, and he has spots in front of his eyes, and he treats himself according to the symptoms he has himself noticed and sometimes takes patent medicines for cleansing the kidneys, and so on. Other people unwittingly, or because they are super-patriotic, and do not wish the Government to pay any interest on the money they disperse, develop the complaint slowly, but surely, although unknowingly in the local "pub." Until the diagnosis of chronic Bright's disease is made, there is no field for the operation of the Clause, but in the years before there is every field for the vendors of patent medicines to sell their wares for the treatment of the symptoms which are slowly developing. The inclusion of Bright's disease in this Clause
will have no effect on the patent medicine trade.
The same thing applies to epilepsy. Very often this disease occurs early in life. The patient falls down in a violent fit; if he is at home, his parents get very worried and alarmed on seeing the boy or girl foaming at the mouth and lying on the floor, and immediately send for the nearest doctor. Therefore, the patient gets into the hands of the doctors and is very carefully treated for epilepsy throughout the whole of his life, or until the disease eases off, and the whole field of patent medicine is debarred to him. I could go on in the same way about paralysis, and so on, but I will not take up more of the time of the Committee. However, I believe that the Clause is valuable in that it shows that Parliament is taking an interest in this matter; otherwise, I believe it to be futile in that it will not affect the patent medicine trade in any way. I hope the Minister will regard this as merely filling up a gap pending greater efforts in the future.

Sir Ralph Glyn: In regard to the proviso about leave being given to voluntary hospitals, may I ask whoever is to reply what is the definition of a voluntary hospital? As far as I know, there has never been any definition of a voluntary hospital, and I think this Bill might be the occasion for considering some suitable definition.

Mr. Woods: I hope the Minister will take into consideration the point raised by the hon. Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate). The Committee is entirely agreed that there should be no exploitation of the anxiety of victims or their relatives. The fact remains, however, these diseases are so baffling to the medical profession that the medical profession have often had to acknowledge that they are bunkered, in spite of their training and equipment. The medical profession have been in this position time and again. It is then that an inspired man who has had no special training and who has no professional status may, because he has concentrated upon one thing, be able to give benefit to mankind. This Clause would prevent that individual from making known and making available his remedy, and it would also circumscribe him in regard to any experimental work. I know the Minister can say there is a covering


Clause, and that such a person could advertise if he had the sanction of the Minister of Health. But, before that sanction was given, the Minister would probably refer the matter through the orthodox medical machinery, and the profession would be so annoyed because an inspired amateur had put them in the shade, that they would turn him down and advise the Minister to have nothing to do with his remedy. On the other hand, suppose the Minister was convinced that the man had a remedy and he used his own judgment. What would be the position if he gave permission? That person would be able to state that his advertisement had the sanction of the Minister of Health. It would be a jolly good advertisement and a money-getter— there would be no provision to prevent the exploitation of that sanction. Before we leave this matter, the Minister should look at both sides of the problem and make some definite provision for research. We do not want to create the impression, because the medical profession may be baffled, that we do not want research to continue. I hope we shall continue to struggle against those diseases which are incurable. I entirely agree with the intention of the Clause, and that we do riot want any further exploitation of people who are the victims of a disease.

Mr. Henry Strauss: I should like to ask one question before my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary replies. During the Second Reading Debate numerous examples were given from all parts of the House of fraudulent advertisements of medicines, not one of which will come within the prohibition of this Clause. I wish to ask whether this Clause is directed against any advertisements which are known to be in existence, because, if it is not, we might at least suspect that this is not the best way of dealing with an existing evil. If it is not directed against any existing advertisement, I would ask the Government seriously to consider inserting a new Clause, making it a criminal offence deliberately to publish a false statement of fact in connection with the sale of a medicine.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): My right hon. Friend will, of course, look into the numerous questions that have been put and suggestions which have been made

with a view to meeting the points. While I have been listening I could not help thinking that there is still some misunderstanding as to what the Clause does, or attempts to do. The hon. Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) made her point very clear, and we were left in no misunderstanding, but there is nothing in the Clause to prevent her or anyone else from putting up a brass plate and treating people. What is going to be made illegal is the advertising of specific articles which are said to be a cure for particular diseases, not the treatment of them. We have been asked why these particular diseases have been selected. It was explained on the Second Reading that certain diseases were suggested in the Report of the Committee of 1914. Some of them have been included, and two have been added to the list. The hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss) has pleaded again that we should go further in the prohibition of advertisements. The difficulty is that the Bill does not deal with advertisements as such, but with the evil of advertisements of cures for serious diseases which can be alleviated, if not cured, if action is taken in time.
The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) put the case of mineral waters. If he will give my right hon. Friend particulars he will look into it, but as far as we know no mineral water is advertised as alleviating or curing a particular disease. Unless certain mineral waters or other articles which may be used for a particular purpose are advertised for the treatment of human beings for certain diseases, they would not come within the scope of this Clause. I would remind hon. Members that the Bill contains the protection that proceedings will not be taken except with the consent of the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General.

Mr. Loftus: The last Sub-section of Clause 5 says,
No prosecution for a contravention of any of the provisions of the last two preceding sections shall be instituted.
Does that include the whole of Clause 3?

Miss Horsbrugh: Yes, it covers the whole Clause. We have seen in this Debate, as we saw on Second Reading, that some hon. Members think we have not gone far enough and others think that we have gone too far. Some think that it will discourage research and others do not think it will make the slightest


difference. If, however, hon. Members realise the purpose of the Clause and realise that there is the protection I have mentioned, they will perhaps agree that the attempt is well worth making. It can be improved later, perhaps, by amending legislation. I can assure hon. Members that it does not stop anyone from making every effort to use his or her skill to alleviate human suffering but it does prevent certain remedies being advertised as cures, or for the treatment, of particular diseases.

Sir R. Glyn: Will my hon. Friend say why the word "voluntary" is inserted before hospital? Would not hospital be sufficient?

Miss Horsbrugh: The reason is that other hospitals come under local authorities, who are also mentioned.

Sir R. Glyn: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that a group of people cannot get together and form a voluntary hospital for the purpose of defeating certain things in the Bill?

Miss Horsbrugh: I do not think so in view of the definition of "hospital" in Sub-section (3).

Captain Strickland: Is it intended to make any difference between municipal and voluntary hospitals?

Miss Horsbrugh: No. The term "local authority" will include the municipal hospitals. My right hon. Friend thinks that all the various kinds of hospitals are covered, but if there is a doubt about it, he will look into it.

Dr. Russell Thomas: Why was the report of a committee 27 years ago taken in this matter? Medical science has advanced enormously in that time, and advertisements which would persuade people to take certain medicines then would not have the slightest effect to-day.

Miss Horsbrugh: There was another committee in 1937 which reported the same diseases as those mentioned in 1914. We are a little more up-to-date than my hon. Friend thought.

Dr. Morgan: I am in favour of this Bill as a whole, but I am

not sure that this is not a most dangerous Clause. There are certain of the diseases mentioned which are perfectly curable according to certain researches going on now. It is quite possible under certain modern methods of treatment /to cure locomotor ataxy. I have seen it done, provided the disease is caught at a certain stage. Supposing a doctor is struck off the roll for some minor offence, quite un-associated with medicine, such as antedating a certificate, and supposing that doctor discovers a cure for locomotor ataxy. He has to make a living. He is a trained man, although he has been struck off the roll. Is he not to be allowed to advertise his cure for a disease which he is able to cure, or is he only to be allowed to do so with the sanction of the Minister of Health?

Miss Horsbrugh: I think the hon. Member will agree that a person who has engaged in this research, even if he has been struck off the roll, will not normally wish to keep his discovery entirely to himself. If he wants anyone else to know about it, he will know with whom he has to communicate to say that he has found a cure. To begin with, there are Members of the Houses of Parliament. He can send to anyone who is a Member of Parliament and say, "I have found a cure for this particular disease." He can also send the information to other people, including local authorities. If the hon. Member looks at the list he will see that it is a pretty comprehensive one.

Dr. Morgan: That does not meet my point. I have no wish to encourage the amateur treatment of disease, because as a medical man I have seen too many cases of death resulting from that. But I know the General Medical Council very well. I have long wanted to get an opportunity to debate it in this House, but I have not been able to do so. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Raise it on the Adjournment."] I wish I could, but it is very difficult. A doctor may be struck off the roll for what I consider to be a very minor offence. He has to live. Many doctors who are in that case are struggling in the Colonies. That man may be a great authority on a certain disease and he may discover a cure for it. I want that man to be able to exploit his discovery, and be able to advertise his treatment and to keep the cure a secret


at the same time, if he wants to do so. Why must he have the sanction of the Minister of Health, who may not be at all proof against the antagonism of the recognised members of the profession? Take the loose term "paralysis." Paralysis may mean paralysis of anything, of one muscle. As a doctor, I know the difficulty of treating dermatitis. I have dealt with such cases under the Workmen's Compensation Act and I know there is difficulty in curing them. I know a doctor who at the present time is making researches into dermatitis and giving a particular form of treatment which is producing very good results in a very short time, even in the most persistent cases, though I am not saying that he is as yet completely successful. That man is doing something unique, which nobody else has been able to do, and I do not want that man to have to advertise to the world the whole of his ingredients, or his technique, or his methods of treatment. I want that man, if he gets into a difficulty, to be able to earn his living by exploiting his discovery, and I do not see why he should first have to communicate his discovery to the Minister of Health or

to certain other people. I do not want to encourage the inspired amateur, but, after all the explanations which have been given, I still say that this seems to be a most dangerous Clause, and I wish the Minister would promise to look into the matter again to see whether he cannot find some form of Amendment which will meet the situation, which some of us view with great concern.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill

Ordered, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. Adamson.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon the next Sitting Day,

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved. "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Adamson.